Rivero-Parra v. Lindsay Corp., CIVIL NO. 19-1532 (GAG)

397 F.Supp.3d 206

Alexis RIVERO-PARRA, Plaintiff,

v.LINDSAY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 19-1532 (GAG)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed August 19, 2019

Miguel A. Suro-Carrasco, Jorge M. Suro-Ballester, Suro & Suro Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Margarita Rosado-Toledo, San Juan, PR, for Defendants Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC, Lindsay Transportation Solutions, Inc.

Raphael Pena-Ramon, Pena Ramon & Company Law Firm, San Juan, PR, for Defendants JC Barrier Solutions Corporation.

ORDER

GUSTAVO A. GELPI, United States District Judge

This case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The complaint states that Alexis Rivero-Parra ("Plaintiff") is a United States citizen currently residing in Japan. (See Docket No. 1 at ¶ 1.) The defendants in this case are citizens of Puerto Rico, Nebraska, and California for diversity purposes. (See id.) When invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. See D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 126 (1st Cir. 2011). In order to demonstrate complete diversity, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he is a citizen of one of the fifty states or of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, or another territory. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(e) ("The word "States", as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.") United States citizens, who do not reside in any state as defined by the statute, are citizens of no state and their stateless status destroys complete diversity. See Zwirn, 661 F.3d at 126 (citing Newman–Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo–Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829, 109 S.Ct. 2218, 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989) ). In this case, Plaintiff admittedly is a United States citizen residing in Japan. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. Plaintiff must pursue this action in Commonwealth court. This Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the claims; nor the injunctive relief sought.

SO ORDERED.