Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 2, 2025

BYD Management, LLC v. Don King Productions, Inc.

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:24-cv-09335
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Judge Torres ordered BYD Sports v. Don King to amend its diversity-jurisdiction allegations by January 17, 2025.

Who this affects

BYD Sports, LLC and BYD Management, LLC must provide allegations identifying the citizenship of each of their members. The court warned that failure to do so or to comply with its orders may result in dismissal.

What happened

In BYD Sports, LLC and BYD Management, LLC v. Don King, the two plaintiff companies brought the case under the federal diversity-jurisdiction statute. Their complaint said only that they were limited liability companies registered in Virginia.

Because a limited liability company’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of each member, the court ordered the plaintiffs to identify their members’ citizenship. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, but it still did not provide that information.

Judge Analisa Torres ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint again by January 17, 2025, to allege each member’s citizenship. She warned that failing to establish complete diversity or comply with the court’s orders may result in dismissal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
BYD Management, LLC v. Don King Productions, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-09335
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Jan. 2, 2025

Background

BYD Sports, LLC and BYD Management, LLC filed the action invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The opinion states that a limited liability company takes the citizenship of each of its members. The plaintiffs’ original complaint alleged only that they were limited liability companies registered in Virginia; it did not allege the citizenship of each member.

Earlier Order and Amended Complaint

In an order dated December 16, 2024, the court directed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint by December 31, 2024, to allege the citizenship of each member. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 18, 2024. That complaint, dated December 12, 2024, again failed to list the citizenship of each plaintiff’s members.

Ruling

The court ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint by January 17, 2025, to allege the citizenship of each member. The court advised that failure to allege complete diversity or comply with its orders may result in dismissal. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.