Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 5, 2020

Stickle v. Astora Women's Health, LLC

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-08164
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stickle v. Astora, Judge Briccetti ordered citizenship details before deciding whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists.

Who this affects

Carol A. Stickle and defendants Astora Women’s Health, LLC, and American Medical Systems, Inc.; plaintiff’s counsel must provide additional citizenship information for the court’s jurisdictional review.

What happened

In Stickle v. Astora Women’s Health, LLC, Carol A. Stickle sued Astora Women’s Health, LLC, and American Medical Systems, Inc., claiming federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship.

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be from a different state than every defendant. The complaint identified Astora as a Delaware corporation but did not provide the citizenship of its members, and it identified American Medical Systems as a Delaware corporation without stating its principal place of business.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit a letter by October 13, 2020, explaining the citizenship of every party so the court could determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stickle v. Astora Women's Health, LLC · No. 7:20-cv-08164
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Oct. 5, 2020

Background

Carol A. Stickle brought the action against Astora Women’s Health, LLC (“Astora”) and American Medical Systems, Inc. (“AMS”). The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which applies to disputes between citizens of different states.

Jurisdictional requirements

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant. An individual’s citizenship is based on domicile, meaning the person’s true fixed home and principal establishment, not merely residence. A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. A limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members.

Deficiencies identified by the court

The complaint alleged that Astora was a “Delaware corporation.” The court stated that Astora’s “LLC” designation appeared to indicate that it is a limited liability company, which required Stickle to allege the citizenship of every individual or entity member. The complaint also alleged that AMS was a Delaware corporation but did not state where AMS maintained its principal place of business.

Order

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit, by October 13, 2020, a letter explaining in detail the citizenship of every party. The purpose was to allow the court to determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute or dismiss the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.