Oppedisano v. Zur
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-05395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Oppedisano v. Zur, Judge Briccetti required briefing on whether the proposed amended complaint would have federal jurisdiction.
Vincenzo Oppedisano, Lynda Zur, and the proposed additional defendants, particularly Myles and the four proposed limited liability companies, were affected by the required jurisdictional briefing.
What happened
In Oppedisano v. Zur, Vincenzo Oppedisano asked to file a second amended complaint adding six defendants, including an individual, a corporation, and four limited liability companies. The proposed complaint did not state a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, although it appeared to rely on diversity of citizenship.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. It said Oppedisano alleged only that the proposed individual defendant, Myles, had an address in Toronto, which did not establish Myles’s domicile. The court also said Oppedisano did not identify all members of the proposed limited liability companies or their citizenships.
Judge Briccetti ordered Oppedisano to address subject-matter jurisdiction in a reply due August 17, 2022. The defendant could, but did not have to, file a further response by August 24, 2022. The order did not decide whether the proposed amendment would be allowed.
The detailed version
- Oppedisano v. Zur · No. 1:20-cv-05395
- Loretta Preska
- Aug. 11, 2022
Background
Vincenzo Oppedisano moved for permission to file a second amended complaint. The proposed pleading sought to add six defendants: one individual, one corporation, and four limited liability companies. The opinion states that the proposed complaint did not identify a basis for the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). The court understood that Oppedisano appeared to be relying on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant. For an individual, citizenship is based on domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment—not merely an address or residence. For a limited liability company, citizenship is based on the citizenship of each member.
The proposed complaint alleged that the proposed individual defendant, Myles, had an address in Toronto, Ontario, but did not allege Myles’s domicile. As to the four proposed limited liability company defendants, the complaint alleged that they were organized in Florida, registered to do business in Florida, and, in some instances, that Lynda Zur or Myles was a managing member. The court stated that these allegations did not identify all members of the companies or their citizenships.
Order
The court directed Oppedisano to address in his reply whether the proposed second amended complaint would establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The reply was due August 17, 2022. Zur was permitted, but not required, to file a further response addressing subject-matter jurisdiction by August 24, 2022. The opinion does not state a final ruling on the motion for leave to amend.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns a threshold jurisdictional issue and directs additional briefing without reaching the underlying dispute or deciding the amendment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.