FXR Construction, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-11086
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In FXR Construction v. Federal Insurance, Judge Cronan ordered citizenship affidavits to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
FXR Construction, Federal Insurance Company, and the unidentified John Doe defendants are affected. The order requires jurisdictional information about the defendants and additional filings concerning whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
What happened
FXR Construction, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company concerns whether the complaint adequately shows that the federal court has diversity jurisdiction. The complaint did not state Federal Insurance Company’s business form, incorporation state, or members’ citizenship, and it did not identify the citizenship or organizational status of the John Doe defendants.
The court noted that the case involves a New York lien on New York property and that one or more unidentified lienors might share FXR Construction’s New York citizenship. Rather than dismissing the case, the court chose to gather more information because the parties had already fully briefed Federal Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss.
The court ordered FXR Construction to submit an affidavit describing all defendants’ citizenships by February 18, 2022. It ordered Federal Insurance Company to file its views on diversity jurisdiction by February 22, 2022, and required any defendant contesting jurisdiction to submit an affidavit. Judge Cronan did not decide whether diversity jurisdiction exists in this order.
The detailed version
- FXR Construction, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-11086
- John Cronan
- Feb. 11, 2022
Background
FXR Construction’s complaint alleged that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires diversity of citizenship. The complaint alleged that Federal Insurance Company had its principal place of business in New Jersey, but it did not state whether the company was a corporation or an unincorporated organization, its state of incorporation, or the citizenship of its members.
The complaint also named John Does 1 through 10 as necessary parties. The complaint was filed on December 30, 2020, but the Doe defendants were never identified. They had not been served or appeared. The complaint did not state their citizenships or whether they were individuals or business organizations.
Jurisdictional Concern
The court explained that a complaint must adequately allege the facts supporting diversity jurisdiction, but a failure to plead those facts does not always require dismissal. The court may allow an amendment or may consider the record as supplemented. The court was particularly concerned because the case involved a New York lien on New York property, making it possible that one or more unidentified lienors shared FXR Construction’s alleged New York citizenship.
Order
Because the parties had already fully briefed Federal Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss, the court ordered the parties to supplement the record rather than requiring an amended complaint. FXR Construction had to submit, by February 18, 2022, an affidavit outlining all defendants’ citizenships. Federal Insurance Company had to file, by February 22, 2022, a letter stating its views on whether diversity jurisdiction exists. If Federal Insurance Company or any John Doe defendant disputed jurisdiction, that defendant also had to submit an affidavit addressing the relevant facts.
The order did not determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists and did not state a disposition of Federal Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.