Opinion
04 Civ. 0439 (LAK)
February 13, 2004
ORDER
The complaint in this purported diversity action failed adequately to allege the citizenship either of the plaintiff, see Sun Printing Publishing Ass'n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996); Depradine v. Nissan Infmiti LT, No. 00 Civ. 6686 (LAK), 2000 WL 1280971, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2000), or the defendant, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The Court therefore issued an order stating that the action would be dismissed absent the filing of an amended complaint curing these deficiencies.
Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint which adequately alleges that plaintiff is a citizen of Connecticut. With respect to the defendant, it alleges only that it has its principal place of business in New York and "thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, . . . is a citizen of the State of New York." Am. Cpt. ¶ 2. That of course is true. But 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) — the statute the Court cited in the prior order — states that it is a citizen also of the state in which it is incorporated. The amended complaint therefore fails adequately to allege the citizenship of the defendant and the requisite complete diversity between plaintiff and defendant.
Alleging diversity jurisdiction is not particularly difficult. One need only read 28 U.S.C. § 1332, determine the material facts, and plug those facts into Form 2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, despite the relevant authorities and the specific statute having been called to counsel's attention by the Court, plaintiff still has not adequately alleged jurisdiction. Accordingly, the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.