Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 24, 2020

Kalaj v. Main Street WP Hotel Associates, LLC

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-09843
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kalaj v. Main Street WP Hotel Associates, LLC, Judge Briccetti ordered defendants to clarify citizenship or face remand for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The three defendant LLCs must clarify the citizenship of every party by December 1, 2020. If they do not, the court stated it will remand Julijana Kalaj’s case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

What happened

Julijana Kalaj sued Main Street WP Hotel Associates, LLC, Metropolitan Plaza WP, LLC, and MJ Hotels of White Plains, LLC in state court, and the defendants moved the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship.

The court found that the removal papers did not properly establish every party’s citizenship. They described Kalaj as a Michigan resident rather than stating her domicile, and they did not identify the members and citizenship of each defendant limited liability company. The papers also alleged that one defendant was a New York citizen, which could prevent removal.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the defendants to submit a letter by December 1, 2020, clarifying each party’s citizenship. He stated that if they failed to do so, the court would remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kalaj v. Main Street WP Hotel Associates, LLC · No. 7:20-cv-09843
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Nov. 24, 2020

Background

Defendants Main Street WP Hotel Associates, LLC, Metropolitan Plaza WP, LLC, and MJ Hotels of White Plains, LLC removed Julijana Kalaj’s action from Supreme Court, Westchester County. They asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

Citizenship allegations

The court explained that an individual’s citizenship for diversity purposes is based on domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment—not residence alone. The notice of removal described Kalaj as a “resident” of Michigan, which did not establish her domicile.

The notice also stated that the defendant LLCs were organized under the laws of Delaware, New York, and Florida and that each had its principal place of business in Florida. The court explained that those facts would be relevant for corporations, but the defendants are limited liability companies. An LLC has the citizenship of each of its individual or entity members, and the notice did not separately identify the members of each LLC or their citizenship.

The court further noted that the notice alleged one defendant was a citizen of New York. Under the federal removal statute, a diversity case generally cannot be removed if a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was brought. The court therefore stated that this allegation could independently prevent removal.

Order

The court ordered the defendants to submit a letter by December 1, 2020, clarifying the citizenship of every party so the court could determine whether complete diversity existed and whether removal was proper. The order did not remand the case at that time. Instead, it stated that the court would remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the defendants failed to provide the clarification.

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.