Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
In re:
JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
_________________________________/
This Document Relates to the Other Broker Tranche
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. “A federal court not only has the power
but also the obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that
jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251
(11th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Stated differently, it is the Court’s responsibility to “zealously
insure that jurisdiction exists over a case[.]” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.
2001) (alteration added; citations omitted).
Plaintiffs, Erik Chavez and Peter Jang, allege subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28
U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2). (See Notice of Filing of Compl. in Chavez, et al. v. Apex Clearing
Corporation Matter, Ex. A., Compl. [ECF No. 479] ¶ 9). Under section 1332, federal courts have
diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states or foreign countries
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs seek damages
well in excess of $75,000.00 (see Compl. ¶ 9) but make insufficient allegations to show complete
diversity of citizenship exists.
The Complaint alleges that “[m]any members of the proposed Class are citizens of a state
different from Defendant.” (Id. (alteration added)). But it does not specifically allege that the two
named Plaintiffs are citizens of any state. (See id. ¶¶ 13–21). It alleges only that Erik Chavez is a
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 481 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2022 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
2
“resident” of Arizona (id. ¶ 13) and that Peter Jang is a “resident” of Maryland (id. ¶ 17). These
statements are not enough.
“Standing alone, an allegation that a party is a resident of a certain state is not a sufficient
allegation of his citizenship in that state.” Delome v. Union Barge Line Co., 444 F.2d 225, 233
(5th Cir. 1971) (collecting cases). To adequately plead citizenship, Plaintiffs must allege that they
are domiciled in their respective states, or that each Plaintiff’s state is “the place of his true, fixed,
and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning
whenever he is absent therefrom[.]” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257–58 (11th Cir.
2002) (alteration added; citation and quotation marks omitted). Before the Court may determine
whether there is subject matter jurisdiction under section 1332, Plaintiffs must submit allegations
detailing each party’s citizenship. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs, Erik Chavez and Peter Jang shall file an
amended complaint clarifying their citizenship by June 15, 2022. Failure to do so will result in
dismissal without prejudice without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of June, 2022.
________________________________________
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 481 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2022 Page 2 of 2