The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut v. Schlachet
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-06501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Automobile Insurance Co. v. Schlachet, Judge Furman ordered the plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege citizenship supporting federal jurisdiction.
The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut must amend its complaint to allege the parties’ citizenship; David Schlachet is affected by the potential dismissal if federal jurisdiction is not established.
What happened
The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut sued David Schlachet in federal court, relying on diversity jurisdiction, which requires the parties to be citizens of different states.
The complaint alleged Schlachet’s state of residence, but not his state of citizenship. The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint properly alleging each party’s citizenship by August 7, 2023. The court said it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice if the plaintiff did not establish federal jurisdiction by then.
The detailed version
- The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut v. Schlachet · No. 1:23-cv-06501
- Jesse Furman
- July 31, 2023
Background
The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut filed a complaint on July 27, 2023. It invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Jurisdictional Problem
The complaint alleged David Schlachet’s state of residence, but it did not allege his state of citizenship. The court explained that residence is not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. For this purpose, citizenship depends on a person’s domicile.
Order
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party by August 7, 2023. The court stated that if the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed at that time.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.