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 dismissed the case without prejudice because plaintiffs did not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this action; the complaint was dismissed, pending motions were declared moot, conferences were canceled, and the case was closed.
What happened
In von der Schmidt v. Higgins, the plaintiffs relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states. They amended their complaint twice after the court instructed them to provide the information needed to establish jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs alleged the residences of themselves and the individual defendants, but residence alone does not establish legal citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. They also failed to allege the citizenship of every party, despite two warnings that the case would be dismissed if they did not correct the problem.
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court declared any pending motions moot, canceled conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- von der Schmidt v. Higgins · No. 1:23-cv-03389
- Jesse Furman
- May 4, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs brought the action in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the plaintiff to affirmatively allege the citizenship of every party. The plaintiffs amended their complaint twice after the Court directed them to address the jurisdictional allegations.
Jurisdictional Defect
The amended complaint alleged the residences of the plaintiffs and the individual defendants, but did not allege the citizenship of every party. The Court explained that residence alone is insufficient to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. The Court had twice warned the plaintiffs that it would dismiss the case if they failed to file an amended complaint establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority to hear the case.
Disposition
The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The Court also ruled that any pending motions were moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.