Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-06339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Judge Furman ordered plaintiffs to amend citizenship allegations by August 1 or face dismissal without prejudice.
The plaintiffs, who must amend their complaint to properly allege each party’s citizenship; the case could be dismissed without prejudice if they do not establish subject-matter jurisdiction by August 1, 2023.
What happened
In Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., the plaintiffs claimed that the federal court had jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states. But their complaint alleged only the parties’ states of residence, not citizenship.
The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. It therefore required the plaintiffs to provide proper citizenship allegations for every party.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by August 1, 2023. If they did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction by then, the court said it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.
The detailed version
- Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06339
- Jesse Furman
- July 25, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 21, 2023, invoking federal jurisdiction under the diversity-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. They alleged that there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, but identified only the parties’ states of residence.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that allegations of residence are not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that a party’s citizenship depends on domicile and that the complaint therefore did not adequately establish subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by August 1, 2023, properly alleging the citizenship of every party. The court stated that if the plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by that date, it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice. The order addressed the jurisdictional allegations and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.