Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2025

Crossing Bay Partners, LLC v. Gottfried

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:25-cv-04834
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Crossing Bay Partners v. Gottfried, Judge Castel ordered citizenship disclosures before deciding whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Who this affects

Crossing Bay Partners, LLC must obtain and plead the required citizenship information; UtilizeCore LLC must respond to the permitted interrogatory; all parties are affected because the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the complaint is not amended within 30 days.

What happened

Crossing Bay Partners, LLC sued Steven Gottfried, UtilizeCore LLC, and Equipid, Inc., individually and on behalf of Equipid, in a shareholder derivative action based on diversity jurisdiction.

The court said the complaint did not identify the members of Crossing Bay Partners or UtilizeCore, or those members’ citizenships. It gave Crossing Bay Partners time to obtain information from UtilizeCore and amend the complaint.

Judge Castel ordered the requested information and gave Crossing Bay Partners 30 days to amend the complaint, warning that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if it does not do so.

The detailed version

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

Case
Crossing Bay Partners, LLC v. Gottfried · No. 1:25-cv-04834
Judge
P. Castel
Date
June 24, 2025

Background

Crossing Bay Partners, LLC brought a shareholder derivative action individually and on behalf of Equipid, Inc. against Steven Gottfried, UtilizeCore LLC, and Equipid, Inc. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain civil cases involving parties from different states when the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000.

Jurisdictional problem

The court explained that diversity must exist when the case begins and must be complete, meaning no plaintiff and defendant may be citizens of the same state. A limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. The complaint did not identify the members of either Crossing Bay Partners or UtilizeCore, LLC, or the members’ citizenships. The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege the facts needed to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Order

Within 14 days of the order, Crossing Bay Partners may serve one interrogatory on UtilizeCore asking for the citizenship of all natural-person members and, if any corporation is a member, the state where that corporation was incorporated and its principal place of business. UtilizeCore must respond within 14 days. Crossing Bay Partners must amend the complaint within 30 days to provide the citizenship of all parties. The court stated that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the complaint is not amended as required. The order did not decide the merits of the shareholder claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.