By order entered May 20, 2004, the Court advised plaintiff that
the amended complaint, which purports to base subject matter
jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, failed adequately to
allege subject matter jurisdiction because it alleged the
residences of the parties rather than allege their citizenship.
See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Edwards,
194 U.S. 377 E.g., (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp. v.
PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996); Depradine
v. Nissan Infiniti LT, No. 00 Civ. 6686 (LAK), 2000 WL 1280971,
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2000). It indicated that the action would
be dismissed absent the filing, on or before June 4, 2004,
subsequently extended to July 11, 2004, of a second amended
complaint remedying this deficiency. It also invited plaintiff,
who is proceeding pro se, to consult the Pro Se Office of the
Court for assistance.
Plaintiff belatedly has not filed a second amended complaint.
It still fails to allege the citizenship, as opposed to
residence, of each party. Accordingly, the second amended
complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court will give plaintiff a final chance to save the action
by filing on or before July 28, 2004, a third amended complaint
adequately alleging jurisdiction.