David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Son
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-02614
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Son, Judge Aaron ordered plaintiff to document its members’ citizenship because diversity jurisdiction was not adequately alleged.
David Benrimon Fine Art LLC was ordered to provide information about the citizenship of each of its members by August 1, 2025; the order concerned whether the federal court could exercise diversity jurisdiction over the action.
What happened
David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Son concerns whether the federal court could hear the plaintiff’s case based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires parties to be citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in dispute.
The plaintiff is a limited liability company, but its complaint did not identify the citizenship of each of its members. The court therefore said the plaintiff had not shown that the parties were citizens of different states and that the case could not presently be maintained in federal court.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the plaintiff to file an affidavit or declaration identifying the citizenship of every member of David Benrimon Fine Art LLC by August 1, 2025.
The detailed version
- David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Son · No. 1:23-cv-02614
- Stewart Aaron
- July 24, 2025
Issue
Before entering a default judgment, a federal court must ensure that it has subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear the dispute. The plaintiff relied on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which requires more than $75,000 in controversy and complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. A complaint relying on diversity jurisdiction must therefore identify the citizenship of the LLC’s members. David Benrimon Fine Art LLC’s complaint did not do so. The court noted that the complaint alleged that “David Benrimon Fine Art is a New York corporation,” but that allegation did not establish the citizenship of the members of the plaintiff LLC. Because the plaintiff did not meet its burden to show subject-matter jurisdiction, the court had no basis to exercise diversity jurisdiction and stated that the action could not presently be maintained in that court.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff, no later than August 1, 2025, to file an affidavit or declaration setting forth the citizenship of each member of David Benrimon Fine Art LLC. The order addressed the court’s jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court addressed a threshold jurisdictional problem without reaching the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.