Coppelson v. Serhant
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-08481
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Coppelson v. Serhant, Judge Liman allowed limited jurisdiction discovery, permitted an amended removal notice, and postponed the initial conference.
The plaintiffs, Aaron Coppelson and Nightengale LLC, and the defendants were affected by the order requiring limited jurisdiction-related discovery, allowing an amended removal notice, and postponing the initial pretrial conference.
What happened
In Coppelson v. Serhant, the defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which depends on the parties having different citizenship. The court found that the removal notice did not adequately state the citizenship of the two limited liability companies involved.
The court allowed the defendants to serve the plaintiffs with a limited written question about the members and citizenship of the plaintiff limited liability company. The defendants could file an amended removal notice by April 13, 2020. The court said the case would be dismissed if the amended notice did not properly establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and it postponed the initial pretrial conference.
Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on February 6, 2020. He did not dismiss the case in this order; instead, he allowed the defendants an opportunity to address the jurisdictional problem and adjourned the conference pending further order.
The detailed version
- Coppelson v. Serhant · No. 1:19-cv-08481
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
Aaron Coppelson and Nightengale LLC sued Ryan Serhant, Nest Seekers International LLC, Elad Rahamin, and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. The defendants removed the matter to federal court on September 13, 2019, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the opposing sides and satisfaction of the statutory requirements.
Jurisdictional Deficiency
The court determined that the Notice of Removal appeared deficient because it did not allege the citizenship of the two limited liability companies—one on each side of the case. The order did not determine whether complete diversity actually existed.
Order
The court exercised its discretion to allow the defendants to serve one limited interrogatory—written discovery asking for specific information—on the plaintiffs by February 18, 2020. The interrogatory could ask for the identity of the members of Nightengale LLC and their respective citizenships.
The defendants were given leave to file an amended Notice of Removal by April 13, 2020. The court stated that, if no amended notice properly alleged a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, the case would be dismissed. The court also adjourned the initial pretrial conference previously scheduled for February 13, 2020, pending further order. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.