Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Mar. 18, 2020

Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:20-cv-00336
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry, Judge Liman scheduled a telephone conference to address whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Who this affects

Amy Claire Duffy, Lydell Jewelry Design Studio, LLC, Global Accessories Group, LLC, and John M. Higgins; the order required the parties to participate in a conference about diversity jurisdiction.

What happened

In Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio, Amy Claire Duffy filed a petition invoking diversity jurisdiction. The filing did not state the citizenship of Lydell Jewelry Design Studio, LLC, Global Accessories Group, LLC, or their members.

The court noted that a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. The opinion did not decide whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered a telephone conference for March 24, 2020, so the parties could discuss diversity jurisdiction.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio · No. 1:20-cv-00336
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Mar. 18, 2020

Background

The petition was filed on January 14, 2020, and its supporting memorandum was filed on February 4, 2020. The petition invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but did not identify the citizenship of Lydell Jewelry Design Studio, LLC or Global Accessories Group, LLC, or the citizenship of their members.

Jurisdiction Issue

The court noted that, for diversity-jurisdiction purposes, a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. The opinion did not determine whether the parties are diverse or whether the court has diversity jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered a conference for March 24, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. The conference was to proceed by telephone, and the parties were directed to discuss whether diversity jurisdiction exists. The order did not address the merits of the petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.