5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-05639
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In 5 Rivers CRE v. Mt. Hawley, Judge Furman ordered a jurisdictional amendment by July 17 and warned of dismissal.
5 Rivers CRE, LLC must amend its complaint to address the amount-in-controversy requirement; the order warns that the action will be dismissed if that requirement is not adequately established.
What happened
5 Rivers CRE, LLC sued Mt. Hawley Insurance Company in federal court, relying on diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity and more than $75,000 in dispute.
The complaint merely stated that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court found that this bare statement did not adequately establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Furman ordered 5 Rivers CRE to amend its complaint by July 17, 2025, to adequately allege the amount in controversy. He stated that the court will dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the plaintiff cannot satisfy that requirement.
The detailed version
- 5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:25-cv-05639
- Jesse Furman
- July 10, 2025
Background
5 Rivers CRE, LLC brought an action against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction, a form of federal jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenship and the amount in dispute.
Court's Analysis
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, excluding interest and costs. The complaint alleged only, in conclusory terms, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court held that this allegation was insufficient to establish the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Order
The court ordered 5 Rivers CRE, LLC to amend the complaint on or before July 17, 2025, to adequately allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court stated that, if the plaintiff could not satisfy its burden by that date, it would dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice. This order did not itself dismiss the action or decide the underlying dispute with the insurance company.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.