Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:24-cv-01006
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz: Judge Kaplan dismissed the case because the amended complaint did not adequately allege the defendant’s citizenship needed for diversity jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case were affected by the dismissal; the case was closed because the complaint did not adequately establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz, the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint claimed that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction, which generally depends on the parties’ citizenship. The court had previously dismissed their original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court found that the amended complaint still did not adequately establish jurisdiction because it did not state the nationality and citizenship of defendant Raul Alejandro Ocasio Ruiz.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Ocasio Ruiz · No. 1:24-cv-01006
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. It invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the statute governing diversity jurisdiction. The court stated that it had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issue
The issue was whether the first amended complaint adequately alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction, including the relevant citizenship information for the parties.
Ruling and reasoning
The court held that the first amended complaint still failed adequately to allege subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it did not allege the nationality and citizenship of defendant Raul Alejandro Ocasio Ruiz. The court therefore dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Disposition
The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.