Ebanks v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

wee KX

ASHLEY S. EBANKS, :

Plaintiff, :

: 25-CV-1181 (JMF)

-v- :

: ORDER

ANDRE L. BROWN and PERFECT TIMING :

TRANSPORT LLC, :

Defendants. :

wee KX

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

On February 10, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in which they invoked the

Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. 1,98. Although

Defendants state that there is “complete diversity of citizenship,” they merely allege some of the

parties’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. Jd. 9 6-7. This is not enough. See,

e.g., Davis v. Cannick, No. 14-CV-7571 (SJF) (SIL), 2015 WL 1954491, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.

29, 2015) (“[A] conclusory allegation in the Complaint regarding diversity of citizenship does

not extinguish the Court’s responsibility to determine, on its own review of the pleadings,

whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). For the purpose

of diversity jurisdiction, “‘a statement of the parties’ residence is insufficient to establish their

citizenship.” Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d

Cir. 1996); see also, e.g., Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998) (“For purposes

of diversity jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.”); Canedy v. Liberty Mut.

Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A]llegations of residency alone cannot establish

citizenship... .”).

Accordingly, no later than February 20, 2025, Defendants shall file an amended notice

of removal properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date,

Defendants do not file an amended notice of removal establishing this Court’s subject-matter

Jurisdiction, the Court will remand the case without prejudice and without further notice to any

party.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2025

New York, New York JESS “FURMAN

nited States District Judge