Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 22, 2022

Edwards v. The Devereux Foundation

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-05121
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Edwards v. The Devereux Foundation, Judge Briccetti ordered clarification of the parties’ citizenship before deciding whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Who this affects

Milton Emory Edwards, Michelle A. Campbell-Edwards, The Devereux Foundation, and Jennifer L. Cox, because the court required clarification of their citizenship before determining whether diversity jurisdiction existed.

What happened

In Edwards v. The Devereux Foundation, The Devereux Foundation removed the case from Putnam County Supreme Court and claimed that the federal court could hear it because the parties were citizens of different states and more than $75,000 was at stake.

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction depends on each party’s citizenship, not merely where an individual lives. An individual’s citizenship is based on domicile, while a corporation’s citizenship is based on its state of incorporation and principal place of business.

The court ordered The Devereux Foundation to submit a letter by June 29, 2022, clarifying every party’s citizenship. Judge Briccetti did not decide whether complete diversity existed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Edwards v. The Devereux Foundation · No. 7:22-cv-05121
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
June 22, 2022

Background

The Devereux Foundation (TDF) removed the action from Supreme Court, Putnam County. TDF asserted that the federal court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which allows federal courts to hear certain cases involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. TDF stated that complete diversity existed between Milton Emory Edwards and Michelle A. Campbell-Edwards, on one side, and TDF and Jennifer L. Cox, on the other.

Jurisdictional Standard

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. For an individual, citizenship is determined by domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment, together with an intent to return there. A statement that a person is a “resident” is not enough. A corporation is a citizen of both the state where it was incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.

Information Requiring Clarification

TDF’s notice of removal described the plaintiffs as residents of Hartford, Connecticut and Cox as a resident of New York. The notice also said TDF was headquartered in Pennsylvania, while the complaint described TDF as a foreign not-for-profit corporation existing under New York law with an office in New York. The court determined that these allegations did not adequately clarify the parties’ citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered TDF to submit, by June 29, 2022, a letter clarifying the citizenship of each party so the court could determine whether complete diversity existed. The order did not decide whether the federal court had diversity jurisdiction, and it did not state a final ruling on the removal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.