FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Hal Luftig Company, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-02768
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
FCP Entertainment Partners v. Hal Luftig Company: Judge Kaplan required amended jurisdictional allegations by May 19 or dismissal.
FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC, Hal Luftig Company, Inc., and Hal Luftig, in the two actions addressed by the order.
What happened
In FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Hal Luftig Company, Inc. and the case brought by Hal Luftig against FCP Entertainment Partners, the court examined whether the pleadings adequately established federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship.
The court identified possible problems involving the citizenship of individuals, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, or other business entities, as well as the timing of any removal from state court. The opinion did not specify which listed problems applied to each case.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered the parties in each case to file an amended petition adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction by May 19, 2022. The relevant action would be dismissed if that filing was not made; the order did not dismiss either action at that time.
The detailed version
- FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Hal Luftig Company, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02768
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 11, 2022
Background
The order addresses two cases: FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Hal Luftig Company, Inc., No. 22-cv-2768 (LAK), and Hal Luftig v. FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC, No. 22-cv-3697 (LAK). The court states that jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides for federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount in dispute.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court held that each petition failed adequately to allege subject-matter jurisdiction. It listed possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of one or more natural persons, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, or other business entities. It also listed the possibility that the timely removal of an action from state court had not been adequately alleged. The order does not identify which specific deficiency applied to each petition and includes the qualification “perhaps among other things.”
Ruling
The court required the filing of an amended petition in each case, on or before May 19, 2022, that adequately alleged the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order states that the relevant action would be dismissed if the required filing was not made. It did not dismiss either action in this order. The order was signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.