Lovo v. Investis Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-00315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lovo v. Investis Inc., Judge Torres ordered Lovo to amend citizenship allegations by January 27 or face dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Monica Lovo, whose complaint must be amended to allege her citizenship; the action may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if she does not do so.
What happened
In Lovo v. Investis Inc., Monica Lovo sued Investis Inc. and said the court had jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different places. Her complaint did not state her citizenship.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the case to be between a citizen of a state and a citizen or subject of a foreign country. It also said that allegations of residency alone do not establish citizenship and that the complaint therefore did not adequately state the basis for federal jurisdiction.
Judge Analisa Torres ordered Lovo to amend the complaint by January 27, 2023, to allege her citizenship. The court said the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if she does not amend the complaint to allege complete diversity.
The detailed version
- Lovo v. Investis Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00315
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 23, 2023
Background
Monica Lovo brought the action against Investis Inc., invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint did not state Lovo’s state of citizenship.
Court’s Analysis
Section 1332(a)(2) requires an action to be between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” The court held that the complaint failed to provide the short and plain statement of the grounds for federal jurisdiction required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). The court also noted that allegations of residency alone cannot establish citizenship.
Order
The court ordered Lovo to amend the pleading by January 27, 2023, to allege her citizenship. The court stated that if Lovo failed to amend the complaint to allege complete diversity, the action would be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed on January 23, 2023.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.