Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2023

von der Schmidt v. Higgins

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-03389
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In von der Schmidt v. Higgins, Judge Furman ordered plaintiffs to plead citizenship by May 3 or face dismissal without prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs must amend their complaint to allege each party’s citizenship and provide a redline by May 3, 2023. If they do not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the court stated that it will dismiss the case without prejudice.

What happened

In von der Schmidt v. Higgins, the plaintiffs tried to establish federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship. After being ordered to correct their complaint, they filed an amended complaint.

Judge Furman found that the amended complaint listed residences but did not state each party’s citizenship. The court explained that residence alone is not enough to establish diversity jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs had not identified any federal claims.

Judge Furman ordered the plaintiffs to file another amended complaint and a redline by May 3, 2023, properly alleging each party’s citizenship. The court said it would dismiss the case without prejudice if they failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction by that date.

The detailed version

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

Case
von der Schmidt v. Higgins · No. 1:23-cv-03389
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 26, 2023

Background

The plaintiffs filed a complaint invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court previously ordered them to amend the complaint so that it properly alleged diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 25, 2023.

The opinion states that the plaintiffs alleged their own state of residence and the residences of individual defendants, but did not allege the parties’ states of citizenship. For diversity jurisdiction, citizenship generally depends on a person’s domicile, and allegations of residence alone are insufficient. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not plead any federal claims, so diversity jurisdiction was the only stated basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file another amended complaint by May 3, 2023, properly alleging the citizenship of every party. They also had to attach a redline showing the differences between the original complaint and the new amended complaint. The court stated that, if the plaintiffs did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction by that date, it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.

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.