Sumner v. Marriott International, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-06711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sumner v. Marriott, Judge Castel gave plaintiffs time to correct missing citizenship allegations needed for federal jurisdiction or face dismissal.
The order directly affected Sarah Sumner and Wilf Sumner, who were given deadlines to obtain information and amend their complaint, and Tishman Hotel & Realty, LP, which was ordered to respond to a limited interrogatory.
What happened
In Sumner v. Marriott International, Inc., Sarah Sumner and Wilf Sumner sued Marriott International, Inc. and Tishman Hotel & Realty, LP, claiming federal jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different places.
The court found that the complaint did not provide all the information needed to determine whether that requirement was met. It did not state where Marriott was incorporated or identify the citizenship of Tishman’s members, which matters because Tishman is a limited partnership.
Judge P. Castel allowed the plaintiffs to ask Tishman for the missing membership-citizenship information and ordered them to amend the complaint within 45 days. The court did not dismiss the action at this stage, but stated that it would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the complaint was not adequately amended.
The detailed version
- Sumner v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06711
- P. Castel
- Aug. 11, 2021
Background
Sarah Sumner and Wilf Sumner brought the action against Marriott International, Inc. and Tishman Hotel & Realty, LP. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states or countries. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were citizens of the United Kingdom, Marriott was a citizen of Maryland, and Tishman was a citizen of New York.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court explained that Marriott’s citizenship required allegations of both its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. The complaint alleged Marriott’s principal place of business but did not allege its state of incorporation. Because Tishman is a limited partnership, its citizenship depends on the citizenship of each general and limited partner. The complaint did not allege the citizenship of Tishman’s members.
Court’s Order
The court allowed the plaintiffs 21 days from the order to serve Tishman with an interrogatory limited to identifying the citizenship of its members. If a corporation was a member, the interrogatory could seek its state of incorporation and principal place of business. Tishman was given 14 days to respond.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint within 45 days to adequately allege Marriott’s citizenship and the citizenship of each Tishman member. The order stated that the action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the plaintiffs did not do so. The court did not dismiss the action in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.