200 Water Property Owner, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-08246
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 200 Water Property Owner v. Liberty Mutual, Judge Schofield struck an earlier order and required more ownership-and-domicile information to assess jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs, including 200 Water Property Owner, LLC, and the court’s evaluation of subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In 200 Water Property Owner, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, the plaintiffs had been ordered to provide information needed to determine the domicile of their limited liability companies. They asked to withdraw three plaintiffs but did not provide enough information about the remaining plaintiff, 200 Water Property Owner, LLC.
The court struck its November 18 order and gave the plaintiffs until November 25, 2019, to provide additional information. The requested information included Carlyle Group’s state of incorporation and the identities and domiciles of the members of Magalith Urban Dumbo, LP’s partners, tracing through additional limited liability entities until reaching a person or non-LLC or non-LLP entity.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order on November 19, 2019. The order required more information to evaluate subject-matter jurisdiction; it did not decide the insurance dispute or state that the case was remanded.
The detailed version
- 200 Water Property Owner, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company · No. 1:19-cv-08246
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs were previously ordered to provide information needed to determine the domicile of each plaintiff limited liability company. The plaintiffs then asked to withdraw 177 Front Street, LLC, 177 Front Member, LLC, and DUMBO Assemblage, LLC, but did not provide enough information to determine the domicile of the remaining plaintiff, 200 Water Property Owner, LLC.
The court ordered additional information about the members of 200 Water Property Owner, LLC and the entities connected to those members. The plaintiffs provided some information but still did not provide enough information to determine the company’s domicile. On November 18, 2019, the court issued another order requesting additional domicile information and stating that the case would be remanded if the plaintiffs continued to fail to provide information sufficient to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court struck its November 18 order. It ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter by November 25, 2019, providing two categories of information:
1. The state of incorporation of the Carlyle Group. 2. The information necessary to determine the domicile of Magalith Urban Dumbo, LP, including the identities and domiciles of the members of its identified general and limited partners.
The court further required the plaintiffs to identify the members of any limited liability entities in that ownership chain and to continue tracing the chain until identifying a person or an entity that was not an LLC or LLP. The order cited Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990), regarding the citizenship or domicile information relevant to a limited liability partnership.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural order concerning whether the court could confirm subject-matter jurisdiction. It struck the prior order and required additional jurisdictional information. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed any party, remanded the case, or decided the parties’ insurance dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.