Smalls v. Bertrand
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-06374
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smalls v. Bertrand, Judge Furman dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Celeste Smalls did not establish diversity jurisdiction.
Celeste Smalls’s personal-injury action against Steven Edward Bertrand and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice because the complaint did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Smalls v. Bertrand, Celeste Smalls brought a personal-injury lawsuit against Steven Edward Bertrand and other defendants, relying on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states.
The complaint identified the parties’ states of residence but did not identify their states of citizenship. The court gave Smalls two opportunities to correct this problem, but she did not file an amended complaint.
Judge Furman dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also ruled that pending motions were moot, canceled scheduled conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Smalls v. Bertrand · No. 1:23-cv-06374
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
Celeste Smalls filed a personal-injury action against Steven Edward Bertrand and other defendants. She based federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Jurisdictional problem
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction depends on citizenship, which is generally based on domicile, rather than merely on where a party resides. Smalls’s complaint alleged only the parties’ states of residence and did not allege their states of citizenship. The court therefore found that the complaint did not establish the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal power to hear the case.
The court had already given Smalls two opportunities to amend the complaint and correct the jurisdictional deficiency. She did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must dismiss an action if it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Judge Furman dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that pending motions were moot, canceled any conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.