SFMB Management, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-05041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In SFMB Management v. Starr Surplus Lines, Judge Furman ordered citizenship disclosures and service steps to address diversity jurisdiction.
SFMB Management, LLC must disclose its members’ citizenship, and Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company must serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
SFMB Management, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company concerns whether the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the removed case. Starr said SFMB is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Florida and that the citizenship of its members was unknown.
Because a limited liability company is a citizen of every state where its members are citizens, the court ordered SFMB to file a statement addressing its members’ citizenship within twenty-one days of removal. The court also ordered Starr to serve SFMB with the order within two business days and file proof of service.
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order without deciding the underlying insurance dispute. The order required information and service steps related to federal jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- SFMB Management, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-05041
- Jesse Furman
- June 9, 2021
Background
Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company removed the action from the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. Starr asserted that federal jurisdiction was proper based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Starr also asserted that SFMB Management, LLC had its principal place of business in Florida and that SFMB’s partners or members were unknown to Starr.
Jurisdictional information
The court explained that a limited liability company is considered a citizen of every state in which its members are citizens. Under Southern District of New York Local Rule 81.1, the court ordered SFMB to file a statement addressing the citizenship of its members within twenty-one days of removal.
Service requirement and disposition
The court directed Starr, within two business days of the order, to serve SFMB with a copy of the order and file proof of service on the docket. The order addressed jurisdictional and administrative requirements and did not decide the underlying insurance dispute.
Unclear date in the opinion
The opinion states that the action was removed on June 8, 2019, although the case number and order date are from 2021. The summary does not resolve that apparent date inconsistency.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.