Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:24-cv-01006
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz, Judge Kaplan required clearer diversity-jurisdiction allegations or the action will be dismissed.
The plaintiffs must provide additional allegations about the parties’ citizenship or nationality and the business entities’ legal structure and citizenship by March 4, 2024, or the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
What happened
Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz is a federal case in which the plaintiffs relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows certain disputes between citizens of different states or countries to be heard in federal court.
The court said the complaint did not adequately identify the nationality or citizenship of one or more people or the citizenship and legal details of one or more business entities. The order did not discuss the underlying claims.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan gave the plaintiffs until March 4, 2024, to file an amended complaint adequately showing federal subject matter jurisdiction. Without that filing, the action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz · No. 1:24-cv-01006
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires adequate allegations showing the citizenship or nationality of the relevant parties and, for some business entities, the citizenship of their members or partners.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court found that the complaint failed adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The order identified possible deficiencies involving the nationality and citizenship of one or more natural persons; the citizenship of one or more corporations; the citizenship of one or more partnerships; and the exact nature and citizenship of one or more alleged limited liability companies. The court stated that these deficiencies might not be the only problems with the jurisdictional allegations.
Order
The court gave the plaintiffs until March 4, 2024, to file an amended complaint adequately alleging subject matter jurisdiction. The order states that, absent that filing, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The order did not reach the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.