Order | Filed: September 10, 2026
| Entered: September 10, 2026
Sium v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Contract: Recovery/Enforcement | New York Eastern
Order to Show Cause
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the Court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Further, this Court has an obligation to examine its subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2006).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 "because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.... " (Compl., ECF No. 1 &para 4.) Plaintiff further alleges that she is "a resident of the State of New York and Kings County" and Defendant "is a national banking association that conducts business in the State of New York.... (Id. &para&para 2-3.)
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. i>See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. First, the citizenship of a national banking association is determined by 28 U.S.C. § 1348, which states that "national banking associations shall... be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located." 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Supreme Court has held, however, that a national banking association is a citizen "in the State designated in its articles of association as its main office." McHugh, 2019 WL 5150205, at *3 (the citizenship of a national banking association "is not determined by its principal executive office but rather by the location of its main office as designated in its articles of association") (quoting Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006)). Because the Complaint does not allege the state designated as the location of Defendant's main office in its articles of association, the Court is unable to determine Defendant's citizenship of this entity and whether its citizenship differs from Plaintiff's. Second, it is also well-settled that domicile, not residence, is the basis for an individual's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 21-892, 2022 WL 1146219, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 19, 2022) (citing Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 5354 (2d Cir. 2019)). See also Jacobs v. Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc., 230 F.3d 565, 567 (2d Cir. 2000) (plaintiffs "failed adequately to allege diversity in their original complaint" because "they had alleged only the residence, and not the citizenship (or domicile), of the parties").) Therefore, allegations regarding Plaintiff's residence are insufficient to establish her citizenship.
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a letter of no more than three (3) pages by 09/16/2026 addressing these deficiencies and showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The letter shall include relevant facts and legal authority to address the issues raised in this Order. Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in a sua sponte recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry on 09/10/2026. (DAC)