Thor 942 Fulton Street, LLC v. Future Transactions Holdings, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-05880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thor 942 Fulton Street v. Future Transactions, Judge Oetken ordered the plaintiff to clarify its jurisdiction allegations or seek amendment.
Thor 942 Fulton Street, LLC must address the complaint’s jurisdictional allegations by July 28, 2022; the defendants and the continuation of the action may be affected by whether jurisdiction is adequately pleaded.
What happened
Thor 942 Fulton Street, LLC sued Future Transactions Holdings, LLC and others, claiming the federal court could hear the case because the parties were citizens of different states. The complaint did not identify the citizenship of every member of the plaintiff limited liability company.
The court explained that an LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of each member, not its headquarters or state of registration. The plaintiff must either explain why the complaint adequately establishes jurisdiction or ask to file an amended complaint that does so.
By order dated July 14, 2022, Judge J. Paul Oetken set a July 28 deadline and warned that the action may be dismissed if the plaintiff does not respond. The court did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Thor 942 Fulton Street, LLC v. Future Transactions Holdings, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05880
- James Oetken
- July 14, 2022
Background
Thor 942 Fulton Street, LLC invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint named Future Transactions Holdings, LLC and others as defendants.
Jurisdictional Deficiency
The court held that the complaint did not adequately establish subject-matter jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. Its principal place of business and state of registration do not establish its citizenship for this purpose. The complaint did not allege the citizenship of every member of the plaintiff LLC or show that the citizenship of each member was diverse from the defendants when the action was filed.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff, by July 28, 2022, to do one of two things: show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or move to file an amended complaint that properly pleads jurisdiction. The court stated that the action may be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to comply. This order did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.