Keane v. Banks
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-05104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Keane v. Banks, Judge Torres ordered briefing on whether certain parties defeat federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs, including Antoine Keane and the named companies, and defendants Cynthia Banks and 982 SW 159 DR LLC; the order requires the plaintiffs and Banks to submit briefing about federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Keane v. Banks, the plaintiffs sued Cynthia Banks and 982 SW 159 DR LLC after filing the case in New York state court. Banks removed the case to federal court, arguing that Antoine Keane and Banks were the only real parties and that the other parties were included only to defeat diversity jurisdiction.
The court said it had reason to believe that Keen Vision Group Co. and 982 SW 159 DR LLC might be nominal parties—parties without a personal stake in the result or a necessary role in resolving the dispute. The court also noted that Keen Vision Properties, LLC would take Keane’s New York citizenship because the complaint says Keane is its only member.
The court did not decide whether federal jurisdiction exists. Judge Analisa Torres ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter brief by July 11, 2025, explaining their position, and ordered Banks to respond by July 18, 2025.
The detailed version
- Keane v. Banks · No. 1:25-cv-05104
- Analisa Torres
- June 24, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed the action in New York Supreme Court on April 23, 2025. On June 17, 2025, Cynthia Banks removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Banks asserted that diversity jurisdiction existed even though the named parties were not completely diverse. She argued that the non-diverse parties were nominal parties included by Antoine Keane solely to defeat federal jurisdiction. According to Banks, Keane, whom the complaint identifies as a New York citizen, and Banks, whom the complaint identifies as a Florida citizen, were the only real parties to the dispute.
Jurisdictional Issue
The court explained that nominal parties are parties with no personal stake in the outcome and who are not necessary to the ultimate resolution of the litigation. The court stated that, if a party is nominal, it must be disregarded when determining whether diversity of citizenship exists.
After reviewing the complaint, the court said it had reason to believe that Keen Vision Group Co. and 982 SW 159 DR LLC might be nominal parties. The court also addressed Banks’s apparent position that Keen Vision Properties, LLC would defeat diversity because it was organized under Florida law. The court noted that, according to the complaint, Keen Vision Properties is a limited liability company with only one member—Keane—and therefore takes Keane’s New York citizenship.
Order
The court did not resolve whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. It ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter brief explaining their position by July 11, 2025, and ordered Banks to file a response by July 18, 2025. The opinion does not state a final disposition of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.