von der Schmidt v. Higgins
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-03389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In von der Schmidt v. Higgins, Judge Furman ordered plaintiffs to amend their complaint to properly plead citizenship supporting federal jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs must amend their complaint to allege each party’s citizenship, including the defendant corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business.
What happened
In von der Schmidt v. Higgins, the plaintiffs relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states. They described where some parties lived but did not state each party’s citizenship.
The court explained that residence is not enough to establish citizenship for this purpose. It also noted that the complaint did not assert any federal claims, so diversity jurisdiction was the only stated basis for the court’s authority to hear the case.
Judge Furman ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by May 1, 2023, stating each party’s citizenship, including the corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business. If they did not do so, the court said it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.
The detailed version
- von der Schmidt v. Higgins · No. 1:23-cv-03389
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 24, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs filed a complaint on April 22, 2023, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction is a basis for federal court authority that generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires the complaint to allege those citizenship facts properly. The plaintiffs stated that they were residents of “the Carolinas” and that the defendants resided in New York. They also alleged that Ms. Ngô was domiciled in California. The complaint did not otherwise allege the citizenship of each party.
The plaintiffs also stated that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over related state and local claims. The court noted, however, that the complaint did not plead any federal claims, making diversity jurisdiction the only stated basis for federal jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that allegations about where a person or entity resides do not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. For an individual, citizenship depends on domicile. For a corporation, citizenship is determined by its place of incorporation and principal place of business.
Order and Effect
Judge Furman ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint no later than May 1, 2023, properly alleging the citizenship of every party, including the defendant corporation. The court did not dismiss the case at that time. It stated that if the plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party. The order addressed the pleading of federal jurisdiction and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.