Lucy v. Lubov Fine Art LLC

Background

Shannon Cartier Lucy filed claims against Lubov Fine Art LLC and Francisco Correa Cordero for breach of contract and violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), alleging that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.

Citizenship allegations

The court explained that an action involving a limited liability company must identify the citizenship of each member of that company. The complaint described Lubov as a New York limited liability company, a New York resident, and an entity with its principal office in New York City, but did not identify any of its members or their citizenship.

The complaint alleged that Lucy was a resident of Nashville, Tennessee and that, on information and belief, Cordero was a resident of Brooklyn, New York. The court stated that residence does not establish citizenship or domicile, and noted that the complaint did not say whether any party was a United States citizen. The court also found that the complaint’s conclusory statements that Lucy was a Tennessee citizen and Lubov was a New York citizen were insufficient.

Amount in controversy

The complaint sought $45,000 in actual damages, at least $30,000 in punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Because these amounts were being used to meet the jurisdictional threshold, the court applied heightened scrutiny.

The court noted that punitive damages in breach-of-contract cases are rare and generally require an independent tort, egregious conduct, conduct directed at the plaintiff, and a pattern directed at the public generally. The court found that Lucy had not alleged these required circumstances. It also stated that punitive damages are not authorized for a violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.

Lucy alleged that the contract allowed the prevailing party to recover litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The court stated, however, that Lucy had not supported the claim that those fees would raise the amount in controversy above $75,000. The court also explained that attorneys’ fees under the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law are discretionary rather than recoverable as a matter of right, so those fees could not satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement on that claim.

Order

The court ordered Lucy to show cause in writing by August 1, 2025, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Her submission must include an affidavit attesting to facts relevant to the diversity analysis. The court stated that if Lucy failed to show cause, including by failing to file a response, it would dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice. The court also stayed the order at ECF No. 34 and directed the Clerk of Court to record that stay.