Revolorio Rodriguez v. Bhavi Hotel L.L.C.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:19-cv-11287
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Revolorio Rodriguez v. Bhavi Hotel L.L.C., Judge Briccetti ordered citizenship details to determine whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists.
The plaintiff and the defendants were affected because the court required plaintiff’s counsel to provide additional citizenship information before the court could determine whether it had federal diversity jurisdiction.
What happened
In Revolorio Rodriguez v. Bhavi Hotel L.L.C., the plaintiff relied on federal jurisdiction based on the parties being citizens of different states. The complaint described the plaintiff as a California resident and the defendants as limited liability companies doing business in New York.
The court explained that residence alone does not establish a person’s citizenship for this purpose. It also explained that a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members, so the complaint needed to identify those members’ citizenships.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit a detailed letter by December 18, 2019, explaining every party’s citizenship. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Revolorio Rodriguez v. Bhavi Hotel L.L.C. · No. 7:19-cv-11287
- Judith McCarthy
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
The plaintiff brought the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which provides federal jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states. The complaint alleged that Livi Maribel Revolorio Rodriguez was a resident of California. It identified the defendants as Bhavi Hotel L.L.C. and Bhavi Spring Valley L.L.C., each doing business as Quality Inn, Spring Valley Nanuet, and alleged that they were domestic limited liability companies authorized to do business in New York with principal places of business there.
Jurisdictional requirements
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. For an individual, citizenship depends on domicile—the person’s fixed home and principal establishment—not residence alone. For a limited liability company, citizenship is based on the citizenship of each individual or entity member. The defendants’ status as limited liability companies therefore required information about their members, not only their business locations.
Order
The court determined that the complaint did not provide enough information to establish the parties’ citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. By December 18, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to submit a letter explaining in detail the citizenship of every party so the court could determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. The order addressed jurisdictional information and did not reach the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
Date and judge note
The supplied case metadata lists a filing date of December 12, 2019 and Judge Judith McCarthy, but the opinion text is dated December 11, 2019 and is signed by Vincent L. Briccetti, United States District Judge. This summary uses the signed judge’s name and the supplied filing date in the metadata header.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.