Freedman v. Rakosi
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-00472
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Freedman v. Rakosi and Rakosi v. Freedman, Judge Torres ordered citizenship information because Sperber’s possible status could defeat diversity jurisdiction.
The parties in both related cases, particularly Stanley Sperber and the plaintiffs required to address his citizenship, are affected. The court’s jurisdiction over both cases may be at issue.
What happened
Freedman v. Rakosi and Rakosi v. Freedman are two related cases filed in the Southern District of New York. The court was told that plaintiff Stanley Sperber is domiciled in Israel and may be a United States citizen.
The court explained that a United States citizen who is domiciled outside any state is treated as having no state citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. If Sperber is both a United States citizen and domiciled in Israel, the court may lack authority to hear either case.
The court ordered the plaintiffs in both cases to file letters by October 10, 2023, stating whether Sperber is a United States citizen and explaining why the cases should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Analisa Torres warned that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Freedman v. Rakosi · No. 1:23-cv-00472
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
Linda M. Freedman and Stanley Sperber filed the first action against Michael F. Rakosi, Susan Rakosi Rosenbloom, as attorney-in-fact for Stanley Rosenbloom, and Weber Realty Management LLC. Michael F. Rakosi later filed a separate action against Freedman, Sperber, Hillel Abrams, and Rachel Rabinovitch. Both actions invoked diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, although the opinion refers to the statute once as 23 U.S.C. § 1332.
Jurisdictional Concern
The court explained that complete diversity requires the parties to have the citizenship needed for federal jurisdiction. A United States citizen who is domiciled abroad is considered “stateless” for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. The court had been advised that Sperber may be a United States citizen and noted that both complaints state that he is domiciled in Israel. If those facts are true, the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over both actions.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs in both actions to file letters by October 10, 2023, advising whether Sperber is a United States citizen and, if so, why the cases should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that the cases will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the plaintiffs do not file the required letter by the deadline. Judge Analisa Torres did not dismiss the cases in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.