C21K Company Limited v. Gindi C21 IP LLC
- P. Castel
- 1:24-cv-07734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In C21K Company Limited v. Gindi C21 IP LLC, Judge Castel ordered jurisdictional details and allowed amendment, warning the action would be dismissed otherwise.
C21K Company Limited must provide complete citizenship allegations in an amended complaint. Gindi C21 IP LLC must provide the ordered information if C21K serves the permitted interrogatory. The action is at risk of dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the required amendment is not filed within 45 days.
What happened
C21K Company Limited sued Gindi C21 IP LLC, but the court found that the amended complaint did not adequately show that the parties were citizens of different places as required for federal jurisdiction.
The court identified missing citizenship information for the members of both limited liability companies, the partners of a partnership member, and a trust member. The court allowed C21K to serve one written question seeking that information and required Gindi C21 IP LLC to respond.
The court ordered C21K to amend its complaint with the citizenship information within 45 days, or the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge P. Castel dated the order March 10, 2025.
The detailed version
- C21K Company Limited v. Gindi C21 IP LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07734
- P. Castel
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
The court had previously raised whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. C21K then filed an amended complaint. The court concluded that the amended complaint still did not adequately allege diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete citizenship diversity between opposing parties.
Jurisdictional deficiencies
For diversity purposes, a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. The amended complaint did not adequately identify the citizenship of the sole member of C21K Company Limited or the sole member of Gindi C21 IP LLC. For individual members, the complaint stated their domiciles but not their countries of citizenship. The court explained that a person’s domicile in a state does not by itself establish United States citizenship, and that foreign citizens on both sides of the case could eliminate diversity jurisdiction.
The amended complaint also identified ALX, C21, LLP as a member of Gindi C21 IP LLC but did not identify that partnership’s partners or their citizenships. A partnership takes the citizenship of each partner for diversity purposes.
Finally, the complaint identified “Ariel Weinstock, as Trustee of the Eddie Gindi Generational Trust, a New York Trust” as a member of Gindi C21 IP LLC but did not adequately establish the trust’s citizenship. The court explained that the citizenship analysis differs depending on whether the trust is a traditional trust or a business trust.
Court’s order
Within 14 days after the order, C21K may serve a single interrogatory, or written question, on Gindi C21 IP LLC seeking the country of citizenship of all natural-person members, the citizenship of the partners of the member partnership, and the citizenship of the trust member. Gindi C21 IP LLC must respond within 14 days after service.
C21K must amend its complaint with the citizenship of all parties within 45 days. The court stated that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if C21K does not do so. Judge P. Castel did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.