Ng v. Amguard Insurance Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-00806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ng v. Amguard Insurance Company, Judge Broderick dismissed the complaint without prejudice and with leave to replead because it did not adequately plead defendants’ citizenship.
Brian Ng and the three defendants—Amguard Insurance Company, North American Risk Services, Inc., and Eberl Claims Services LLC—were affected. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to replead; the two pending motions were dismissed as moot.
What happened
In Ng v. Amguard Insurance Company, Brian Ng sued Amguard Insurance Company, North American Risk Services, Inc., and Eberl Claims Services LLC. He relied on federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount in dispute.
The court said the complaint did not adequately establish the defendants’ citizenship. It was unclear whether the defendants’ authorization or licensing to do business in New York made them New York citizens, and the complaint did not provide information required for the defendants’ different business structures.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed the complaint without prejudice and with leave to replead. He also dismissed Amguard’s motion to dismiss and Ng’s motion to compel as moot. Ng had 30 days to file an amended complaint properly alleging jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Ng v. Amguard Insurance Company · No. 1:25-cv-00806
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Brian Ng, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Amguard Insurance Company, North American Risk Services, Inc. (NARS), and Eberl Claims Services LLC. The complaint invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint alleged that Ng was a citizen of New York. It described Amguard as authorized to do business in New York with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, NARS as licensed to do business in New York with its principal place of business in Florida, and Eberl as licensed to do business in New York with its principal place of business in Colorado.
Jurisdictional pleading
For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege the citizenship of each defendant. Merely stating that a company is licensed or authorized to do business in New York did not resolve whether that company is a New York citizen.
For NARS, the complaint identified its principal place of business but did not identify its state of incorporation. For Eberl, which is a limited liability company, the complaint did not identify the citizenship of each member. The complaint also did not identify Amguard’s type of business entity, which determines how its citizenship must be alleged. Because the complaint failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the court dismissed it.
Rulings
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed Ng’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to replead. Ng had 30 days to file an amended complaint that properly alleged subject-matter jurisdiction. If he did not do so, the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the action. The court also dismissed Amguard’s motion to dismiss and Ng’s motion to compel as moot.
Effect of the order
The order resolved the case at the jurisdictional pleading stage and did not decide the underlying dispute. The dismissal allowed Ng an opportunity to file an amended complaint addressing the citizenship allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.