301 West 53rd Street Junior Mezzanine LLC v. CCO Condo Portfolio Junior…
301 West 53rd Street Junior Mezzanine LLC v. CCO Condo Portfolio (AZ) Junior Mezzanine, LLC
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:20-cv-09448
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Oetken remanded 301 West 53rd Street v. CCO Condo Portfolio because the LLC parties’ citizenship was not properly alleged for diversity jurisdiction.
The five plaintiff LLCs and the defendant LLC were affected because the federal court sent their action back to New York Supreme Court after finding that federal diversity jurisdiction had not been established.
What happened
In 301 West 53rd Street Junior Mezzanine LLC v. CCO Condo Portfolio (AZ) Junior Mezzanine, LLC, five plaintiff LLCs sued another LLC under New York commercial and contract law to stop an auction scheduled for November 12, 2020.
The defendant removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction. But the removal papers identified the plaintiffs’ formation and business locations instead of identifying the citizenship of every member of each LLC, which is what federal law requires.
Judge Oetken concluded that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the action to New York Supreme Court for New York County.
The detailed version
- 301 West 53rd Street Junior Mezzanine LLC v. CCO Condo Portfolio Junior… · No. 1:20-cv-09448
- Jed Rakoff
- Nov. 11, 2020
Background
Five plaintiff limited liability companies filed an action in New York Supreme Court for New York County under the New York Uniform Commercial Code and New York contract law. They sought an order stopping an auction scheduled for November 12, 2020. The defendant, also a limited liability company, removed the case to the Southern District of New York on November 11, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Jurisdictional issue
The court held that the removal papers and complaint did not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. The defendant’s removal notice instead described the plaintiff LLCs as organized in Delaware with principal places of business in New York. The court explained that an LLC’s place of registration and principal place of business do not establish its citizenship for this purpose.
The notice stated that the defendant was wholly owned by CIM Real Estate Finance Trust, Inc., described as a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Arizona. But the papers did not allege the citizenship of every member of each plaintiff LLC or establish that the citizenship of the plaintiff members was different from that of the defendant’s members.
Ruling
Judge Oetken concluded that the notice of removal was defective and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court therefore remanded the action to New York Supreme Court for New York County. The opinion did not decide the parties’ underlying New York commercial-code or contract claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.