Order | Filed: June 24, 2026
| Entered: June 24, 2026
Qu v. Myers et al
Motor Vehicle | New York Eastern
Order to Show Cause
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Defendants removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Notice of Removal at paragraph 8, ECF 1.) In support of Defendants contention that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000, Defendants state that "Plaintiff, MING QU, sustained damages in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the lower Courts and in excess of $75,000.00.'" (Id. at paragraph 7.) Defendants also contend that "there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants" but do not offer proof of citizenship of any party or allege the citizenship of Defendant Myers. (Id. at paragraphs 8 and 9.)
"The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bears the burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete." Advani Enters., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1998). Section 1332(a) requires complete diversity among the plaintiffs and defendants for a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. Herrick Co. v. SCS Commcns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir. 2001) ([D]iversity jurisdiction is available only when all adverse parties to a litigation are completely diverse in their citizenships.). "For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party's citizenship depends on [her] domicile." Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998). "[T]he domicile of a party to a diversity of citizenship case is the place where that individual has a true, fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever that person is absent from the jurisdiction, he or she has the intention of returning[.]" 13E Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 3612 (3d ed. 2021); Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000).
Defendants must allege the citizenship of Defendant Myers, "as determined by his domicile," to adequately invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction. See Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 53 (2d Cir. 2019) (holding that an individual's citizenship is determined by his domicile, not his residency, meaning "the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning."). Accordingly, Defendants shall show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by 7/8/2026. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lara K. Eshkenazi on 6/24/2026. (MED)