Jimenez v. Herrera Montiel
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-08086
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jimenez v. Herrera Montiel, Judge Engelmayer ordered plaintiffs to explain within one week whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists.
The plaintiffs, who were ordered to address whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction and explain the basis for jurisdiction if it existed.
What happened
In Jimenez v. Herrera Montiel, the plaintiffs alleged that federal court jurisdiction existed because the parties were citizens of different states or countries and the dispute exceeded $75,000. They identified Jimenez as a citizen of Spain, Female Form LLC as a New York company, and Herrera Montiel as a citizen of Argentina and Spain residing in Spain.
The court said it could not determine from the complaint whether complete diversity existed. It explained that federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity and that a case with a foreign citizen on each side does not satisfy that requirement. Because the complaint appeared to identify foreign citizenship on both sides, the court saw a possible jurisdictional defect.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter within one week addressing whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction and, if so, the basis for it. The order did not dismiss the case or make a final ruling on jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Herrera Montiel · No. 1:23-cv-08086
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
The court received the plaintiffs' complaint on September 13, 2023. The complaint asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states or countries when the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
The complaint alleged that Iciar Calle Jimenez was a citizen of Spain; that Female Form LLC was a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York; and that Natalia Carolina Herrera Montiel was, to the best of the plaintiffs' knowledge, a citizen of Argentina and Spain who was residing in Spain.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that complete diversity is required for federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Complete diversity generally means that no plaintiff and defendant may share the relevant citizenship. The court stated that a case with a foreign citizen on each side does not have complete diversity. Because the complaint alleged that both Jimenez and Herrera Montiel were foreign citizens, the court could not determine from the allegations that diversity jurisdiction existed.
Order
Because of the apparent jurisdictional defect, the court instructed the plaintiffs to file, within one week of the order, a letter addressing whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction and, if so, the basis for that jurisdiction. The opinion did not dismiss the case and did not make a final determination that jurisdiction was absent.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.