Guo v. Perry
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:23-cv-00119
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Guo v. Perry, Judge Netburn required citizenship evidence before deciding federal jurisdiction over Guo’s fraud claim.
Lun Guo must provide evidence supporting diversity jurisdiction by April 9, 2024; Marjorie Mae Perry may submit rebuttal evidence by April 16, 2024. The case’s jurisdiction and Perry’s merits-based dismissal request remain undecided.
What happened
In Guo v. Perry, Lun Guo sued Marjorie Mae Perry for fraud under New York law and claimed that federal court jurisdiction existed because the parties were citizens of different places.
Perry challenged that claim, saying that both parties were New York citizens when Guo filed the complaint. She also asked the court to dismiss the fraud claims on their merits, but the court said it had to resolve jurisdiction first.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered Guo to file evidence supporting diversity jurisdiction by April 9, 2024, and allowed Perry to file rebuttal evidence by April 16, 2024. The court did not yet decide whether it had jurisdiction or whether the fraud claims should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Guo v. Perry · No. 1:23-cv-00119
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 29, 2024
Background
Lun Guo brought a fraud claim against Marjorie Mae Perry under New York law. Guo asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction. In the complaint, Guo claimed to be a citizen of China and claimed that Perry was a citizen of Illinois. Perry challenged that assertion, arguing that both she and Guo were citizens of New York when the complaint was filed. Perry also moved to dismiss Guo’s fraud claims on the merits.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that it had to verify subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the case—before considering the merits of Perry’s motion. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires more than $75,000 in controversy and citizenship differences between the parties. An individual’s citizenship for this purpose depends on domicile, meaning the person’s true fixed home and principal place of establishment, with an intent to return when absent. Citizenship is determined when the case begins.
Because Perry properly challenged Guo’s jurisdictional allegations, the court said Guo had to provide competent proof that diversity of citizenship existed on January 5, 2023, the date the opinion identifies as the date Guo filed the federal complaint. The court noted that Perry could submit evidence rebutting Guo’s proof. It identified potentially relevant evidence, including residence, voting practices, property, bank and brokerage accounts, employment or business, driver’s license and vehicle registration, taxes, and other aspects of a person’s life. The parties could also submit sworn statements addressing their citizenship or permanent-resident status, home addresses, and intended place of return as of January 5, 2023.
Order
The court ordered Guo to file evidence supporting diversity jurisdiction by April 9, 2024. Perry may file rebuttal evidence by April 16, 2024. The court did not decide the jurisdictional issue, and it did not reach Perry’s request to dismiss the fraud claims on the merits. Because the parties are married and have sought protection orders against each other in family court, the court also allowed them to redact street numbers and names from public address filings and send unredacted addresses to chambers confidentially.
Disposition
The order requires additional evidence and sets filing deadlines; it does not state a final disposition of the motion to dismiss or the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.