21

- 892

- cv Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.



## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CIT ING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 2 New York, on the 1 9 t h da y of A p r i l , two thousand twenty

- two

. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 BARRINGTON D. PARKER , 6 MICHAEL H. PARK , 7 BETH ROBINSON , 8 Circuit Judges. 9

______________________________ ___ ____ ___ ___ __ 10 11 C ANDICE LUE , an individual , 12 13 Plaintiff

- Appellant, 14 15

v. 21

- 892 16 17 JPM ORGAN CHASE & CO. , a Delaware 18 Corporation, A LEX KHAVIN , an individual, 19 F IDELIA SHILLINGFORD , an individual, 20 K IMBERLY DAUBER , an individual, 21 B ARUCH HOROWITZ , an individual, CHRIS 22 LIASIS , an individual, M ICHELLE 23 SULLIVAN , an individual , 24 25 Defendants

- Appellees

. * 26 27

___________________________________________ 28 29 30

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above.2 FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT : Candice Lue
, pro se , Great 1 Meadows, NJ

. 2 3 FOR DEFENDANT S

- APPELLEE S : Robert S. Whitman, Seyfarth 4 Shaw LLP, New York, NY

. 5 6
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 7

New York ( Failla
, J .). 8

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 9

DECREED that the case is REMANDED pursuant to the procedures outlined in United States v. 10

Jacobson , 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994)

. 11
Appellant Candice Lue , proceeding pro se , sued her former employer, JPMorgan Chase & 12

Co. (“JPMorgan”) , and six of its employees or former employees for defamation and “false and 13

fraudulent acts and conduct

. ” Supp. App’x at 17. The district court granted D efendants’ motion 14

to dismiss with prejudice for failure to state a claim

. We assume the parties ’ familiarity with the 15
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 16

We first consider whether we ha ve subject matter jurisdiction because “[c]ourts have an 17
independent obligation to determine whether subject

- matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party 18
challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend , 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2d Cir. 2010). We conclude that Lue 19

has failed to plead diversity of citizenship

. 20

Lue ’s complaint asserted federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which 21
requires that the case be between “Citizens of different States .” Id. § 1332(a)(1). “An 22
individual’s citizenship, within the meaning of the diversity statute, is determined by his dom icile ,” 23
and residence or place of employment alone are “insufficient to establish domicile for 24
jurisdictional purposes.” Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc. , 935 F.3d 49, 53

– 54 (2d Cir. 253 2019) (citation omitted). “[A] plaintiff premising federal juri sdiction on diversity of citizenship 1
is required to include in its complaint adequate allegations to show that the district court has subject 2
matter jurisdiction

. ” Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese

- Costa P.C. v. Dupont , 565 3
F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)); see also Jacobs v. Patent Enforcement 4

Fund, Inc. , 230 F.3d 565, 567 (2d Cir. 2000) ( p laintiffs “failed adequately to allege diversity in 5
their original complaint” because “they had alleged only the residence, and not the citizenship (or 6
domicile)
, of the parties” ). 7
Here, Lue failed to allege the state of her own citizenship or domicile or that of the 8

individual Defendants. Although she sufficiently alleges JPMorgan’s citizenship, s he alleged 9
only that she “reside[s] and work[s] in the state of New Jersey,” and that the individual Defendants 10
were employees or former employees of JPMorgan “ located

. . . in the County of New York. ” 11

Supp. App’x at 2

– 3. These allegations are insufficient to establish individual citizenship for 12
diversity purposes. Likewise, in response to the district court’s initial pretrial conference order, 13
Lue stated that the court had subject matter jurisdiction because “the Plaintiff and the Defendants 14

who are individuals live an d/or work in different states.” S.D.N.Y. dkt. no. 1:19

- cv

- 9784, doc

. 15

23 at 1. Such conclusory allegations are insufficient
, and Lue thus failed to establish diversity of 16
citizenship

. 17
Accordingly, we remand the case pursuant to the procedures adopted in United States v. 18

Jacobson , 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994), with instructions to determine whether there is complete 19
diversity of citizenship between Lue and Defendants

. If the district court determines that it la cks 20
diversity jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case without prejudice . I f it determines that there is 21
diversity jurisdiction, either party may reinstate this appeal by submitting a letter to this Court so 224 requesting no later than 10 days after the distri ct court’s determination . The Clerk shall direct 1
any such appeal to this panel. 2

FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 4