Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 30, 2025

OnePlus USA Corp. v. Phobio LLC

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:25-cv-04453
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In OnePlus USA Corp. v. Phobio LLC, Judge Cronan ordered an amended complaint to establish Phobio’s members’ citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

OnePlus USA Corp. must provide the missing citizenship allegations for Phobio LLC’s members by June 6, 2025, or the action may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

What happened

In OnePlus USA Corp. v. Phobio LLC, OnePlus invoked federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ alleged citizenship. The complaint identified Phobio LLC’s organization and offices in Georgia but did not identify the citizenship of Phobio’s members.

The court explained that an LLC’s citizenship comes from its members’ citizenship. A complaint relying on diversity jurisdiction must therefore identify each member’s citizenship, including relevant information for any corporate members.

The court ordered OnePlus to amend its complaint by June 6, 2025, to allege the citizenship of each Phobio member or otherwise establish jurisdiction under the cited statute. Judge Cronan stated that the court would dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice if OnePlus did not do so.

The detailed version

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

Case
OnePlus USA Corp. v. Phobio LLC · No. 1:25-cv-04453
Judge
John Cronan
Date
May 30, 2025

Background

OnePlus USA Corp. filed its complaint on May 30, 2025, invoking federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint alleged that Phobio LLC was organized under Georgia law and had offices in Georgia. It did not allege the citizenship of Phobio’s members.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a limited liability company takes the citizenship of its members. A complaint based on diversity jurisdiction must therefore allege the citizenship of each natural-person member and, for any corporate member, the corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business. The court concluded that the complaint’s allegations about Phobio’s organization and offices did not establish the information required to determine Phobio’s citizenship.

Order

The court ordered OnePlus to amend its complaint by June 6, 2025, to allege the citizenship of each member of Phobio LLC. The court also stated that, if OnePlus failed to amend by that date or otherwise properly established jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), the court would dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice. The order did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.