Cruz-Guevara v. Sukhram

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
MAXIMO CRUZ-GUEVARA,
Plaintiff,
-against-
VIJAY L. SUKHRAM,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
24-CV-7008(EK)(ARL)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Maximo Cruz-Guevera filed this action in New
York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County. 	Notice of Removal,
ECF No. 1. 	He alleged that defendant Vijay Sukhram caused a car
accident that injured him and damaged his vehicle. 	Compl. ¶¶ 8-
16, ECF No. 1-1. 	Sukhram removed the case to federal court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), invoking this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. 	Notice of Removal ¶ 1.
This Court then ordered Sukhram to show cause as to
why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. 	Order to Show Cause, Docket Order dated Oct. 31,
2025. 	Sukhram has now responded. 	Resp. to Order to Show Cause
(“Def. Resp.”), ECF No. 19. 	For the reasons outlined below,
Sukhram has not shown complete diversity between the parties.
The Court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte.
Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 295-96 (2d
Case 2:24-cv-07008-EK-ARL Document 21 Filed 12/21/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Cir. 2000).1 	Sukhram’s initial notice of removal alleged the
states of residency, but not citizenship, of the parties. 	In
response to the order to show cause, Sukhram filed an amended
notice of removal, an excerpt of testimony from Cruz-Guevara’s
deposition in the underlying action, and his own affidavit. 	Am.
Notice of Removal, ECF No. 19-1; Dep. of Cruz-Guevara (“Cruz-
Guevara Dep.”), ECF No. 19-2; Aff. of Vijay Sukhram (“Sukhram
Aff.”), ECF No. 19-3.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought
in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed” by a
defendant. 	Federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil
actions between a citizen of a State and citizen of a foreign
state if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).2 	In a removal case, the removing
party bears the “burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919 v. CenterMark Props.
Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994).
The court first considers whether the notice of
removal and complaint show the citizenship of the parties.
1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
2 The Court’s order to show cause addressed the diversity of citizenship
issue. 	This order thus considers only whether Sukhram has established
diversity of citizenship and does not address the amount in controversy.
Case 2:24-cv-07008-EK-ARL Document 21 Filed 12/21/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
United Food, 30 F.3d. at 301. 	If these filings do not, or if
the court questions whether the defendant has adequately
supported any assertion in its notice of removal, the court may
order the parties to show cause as to why the case should not be
remanded. 	Id.; Barnes v. Fort Hamilton Fam. Homes, 524 F. Supp.
3d 40, 42 (E.D.N.Y. 2021). 	In that instance, the removing party
must offer proof of the parties’ citizenship. 	Van Buskirk v.
United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019).
The Court also has discretion to order “jurisdictional
discovery” in a removal case with “improperly pleaded
citizenship.” 	Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea
Biopharms., Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 617–18 (2d Cir. 2019). 	But
courts disfavor “extensive inquiry” into removability when a
defendant has “failed in the first instance to aver a proper
jurisdictional basis for removal.” 	Lupo v. Hum. Affs. Int'l,
Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 274 (2d Cir. 1994); Elliott v. Jaquez, 777 F.
Supp. 3d 136, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2025). 	Courts do not typically
conduct jurisdictional discovery after a party has had an
opportunity to respond to an order to show cause. 	Barnes, 524
F. Supp. 3d at 42; see also Elliott, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 149
(determining not to conduct jurisdictional discovery after
defendant responded to the diversity of citizenship issue in
response to plaintiff’s motion to remand).
An individual’s citizenship is determined by reference
Case 2:24-cv-07008-EK-ARL Document 21 Filed 12/21/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
to domicile. 	Van Buskirk, 935 F.3d at 53. 	Domicile is “where a
person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and
to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of
returning.” 	Id. 	In addition to residence, courts consider a
person’s state of employment, automobile registration, and
driver’s license, among other things. 	Kennedy v. Trs. of the
Testamentary Tr. of the Last Will & Testament of President John
F. Kennedy, 633 F. Supp. 2d 77, 81 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff'd, 406
F. App’x 507 (2d Cir. 2010). 	Residency alone is insufficient.
Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir.
1997). 	The party seeking removal must show the domiciles of
each party. 	See Herrick Co. v. SCS Commc'ns, Inc., 251 F.3d
315, 324 (2d Cir. 2001).
Sukhram’s initial notice of removal asserted that
Cruz-Guevara was domiciled in New York. 	Notice of Removal ¶ 2.
Sukhram based this assertion on Cruz-Guevara’s complaint, which
alleged only that Cruz-Guevara was a resident of New York.
Compl. ¶ 1. 	Sukhram then submitted one page of Cruz-Guevera’s
deposition testimony. 	Cruz-Guevara Dep. 	In it, Cruz-Guevara
says that his current address is in Long Island and that he has
lived there for “a year and something. 	Maybe two years; I don’t
know.” 	Id. at 15:7-19. 	He is then asked where he resided
before, but the submitted excerpt shows no answer. 	Id. at
15:20-25.
Case 2:24-cv-07008-EK-ARL Document 21 Filed 12/21/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
This is inadequate because it shows that Cruz-Guevera
resided in New York for two years at most. 	Canedy, 126 F.3d at
103. 	The excerpt reveals nothing about other factors relevant
to domicile. 	Although the state–court complaint also alleges
that Cruz-Guevara owns, and was driving at the time of the
accident, a car registered in New York, Sukhram did not submit
any evidence as to this allegation. 	Compl. ¶¶ 3-4. 	Sukhram has
thus not shown Cruz-Guevara’s domicile, which is necessary to
“support the existence of diversity jurisdiction.”3 	Herrick Co.,
251 F.3d at 324; see also Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Simonee, No.
14-CV-7520, 2015 WL 8490998, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2015)
(finding court lacked jurisdiction where a party’s domicile was
not adequately shown). 	Accordingly, Sukhram has not carried his
burden to show that the case is properly in federal court, and
the case must be remanded. 	Vasura v. Acands, 84 F. Supp. 2d
531, 535–36 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (remanding case where there was not
complete diversity between the parties).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it
does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. 	This
action is therefore remanded to the New York State Supreme
3 In his affidavit, Sukhram states that “[a]t all material times, I
have been a citizen of Ontario Canada, residing in Ontario, Canada.” 	Sukhram
Aff. ¶ 4. 	Because Sukhram has not established Cruz-Guevara’s domicile, he
cannot show complete diversity, and it is thus unnecessary to determine
whether Sukhram has established his own domicile. 	See Herrick Co., 251 F.3d
at 324.
Case 2:24-cv-07008-EK-ARL Document 21 Filed 12/21/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. No. 605217/2024. 	The
Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to send a certified
copy of this Order to the Clerk of the New York State Supreme
Court in Suffolk County.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	December 21, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 2:24-cv-07008-EK-ARL Document 21 Filed 12/21/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>