Fernandes v. Herjo
- Sarah Cave
- 1:23-cv-03078
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fernandes v. Herjo, Judge Cave ordered a declaration clarifying the parties’ domiciles before assessing diversity jurisdiction.
The order affects Alexandria Fernandes and Gary A. Herjo by requiring Mr. Herjo’s counsel to provide information about both parties’ domiciles; it also concerns the federal court’s jurisdiction over the case.
What happened
In Fernandes v. Herjo, Gary A. Herjo removed the case from New York state court to federal court, asserting that the parties were citizens of different states. He described himself as a New Jersey resident and Alexandria Fernandes as a New York resident.
The court explained that diversity citizenship depends on a person’s domicile—the person’s fixed home and intended place of return—not residence alone. To confirm that the federal court has authority to hear the case, the court ordered Mr. Herjo’s lawyer to file a declaration stating each party’s domicile by June 9, 2023.
Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order on June 5, 2023. The order sought information about jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying dispute or definitively resolve whether federal jurisdiction exists.
The detailed version
- Fernandes v. Herjo · No. 1:23-cv-03078
- Sarah Cave
- June 5, 2023
Background
Gary A. Herjo removed the action from New York State Supreme Court, New York County, on April 13, 2023. He asserted, among other things, that diversity of citizenship existed between the parties. In the removal filing, he stated that he was a resident of New Jersey when the complaint was filed and that Alexandria Fernandes was a resident of New York. The parties also identified their residences as the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an individual’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined by domicile. Domicile is a person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment, together with the intention to return there when absent. Residence by itself is not enough to establish domicile for federal jurisdiction.
Order
To ensure that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court ordered Mr. Herjo’s counsel to file a declaration stating each party’s place of domicile by June 9, 2023. Judge Sarah L. Cave did not make a final determination in this order about the parties’ domiciles or whether diversity jurisdiction exists, and the order did not address the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.