Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 20, 2022

Hector v. Johnson

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-05990
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hector v. Johnson, Judge Briccetti ordered more detail about citizenship because the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

John Hector and the defendants, because the court required additional information about their citizenship before proceeding on the asserted diversity jurisdiction.

What happened

In Hector v. Johnson, John Hector brought a case against Kathleen Hector, Jeanine Hector, Edward Guthrie, Raymond Johnson, and unnamed defendants, claiming federal jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states. The complaint alleged residences in California and New York but did not allege anyone’s citizenship.

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. For individuals, citizenship depends on domicile—the person’s permanent home—not residence alone.

The court ordered John Hector to submit, by September 27, 2022, a letter explaining in detail his citizenship and the defendants’ citizenship. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hector v. Johnson · No. 7:22-cv-05990
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Sept. 20, 2022

Background

John Hector brought this action against Kathleen Hector, Jeanine Hector, Edward Guthrie, Raymond Johnson, and John Does 1–5. He invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The complaint alleged that Hector was a resident of California and that the defendants were residents of New York, but it did not allege any party’s citizenship.

Legal standard

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant. For an individual, citizenship is determined by domicile, meaning the person’s true fixed home and principal place of establishment, together with an intention to return there. Residence by itself does not establish domicile for jurisdictional purposes.

Order

The court ordered Hector to submit, by September 27, 2022, a letter explaining in full detail both his citizenship and the defendants’ citizenship. The opinion does not resolve the underlying dispute or state whether diversity jurisdiction ultimately exists.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.