Aleja Manufacturing, Inc. v. POP Displays USA, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-06630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aleja Manufacturing v. POP Displays, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff’s counsel to explain the defendant’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
Aleja Manufacturing, Inc. and POP Displays USA, LLC; the order specifically required action by Aleja Manufacturing’s counsel.
What happened
Aleja Manufacturing, Inc. sued POP Displays USA, LLC, claiming federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ diverse citizenship.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be from a different state than every defendant. The complaint described POP Displays as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, but its name suggested that it is an LLC, whose citizenship depends on the citizenship of each member.
Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit, by August 28, 2020, a detailed letter explaining the basis for POP Displays’ citizenship. The order did not decide the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Aleja Manufacturing, Inc. v. POP Displays USA, LLC · No. 7:20-cv-06630
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 21, 2020
Background
Aleja Manufacturing, Inc. brought the action against POP Displays USA, LLC. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows certain cases between citizens of different states to be heard in federal court.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must have different citizenship from each defendant. A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. An LLC, by contrast, has the citizenship of each of its individual or entity members.
The complaint alleged that POP Displays was a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. The court observed that the “LLC” designation in the defendant’s name suggested that POP Displays was instead a limited liability company. If so, the complaint needed to allege the citizenship of each member to properly establish the defendant’s citizenship.
Order
The court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit, by August 28, 2020, a letter explaining in detail the basis for POP Displays’ citizenship. The order addressed the information needed to evaluate subject-matter jurisdiction and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.