Bouzekri v. Hyatt Hotel Corporations

Background

Sarah Bouzekri sued on behalf of herself and a proposed class in New York State Supreme Court. She alleged violations of the New York Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation was voluntarily dismissed from the case on July 21, 2022. The opinion states that CHSP TRS 31st Street LLC had been dissolved on June 2, 2021. On July 28, 2022, the court ordered Bouzekri to explain why default judgment should not be entered against CHSP or why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Proposed amendment and citizenship allegations

On August 4, 2022, Bouzekri moved to amend the complaint. She sought to substitute CHSP with Blue 31st Street NYC LLC, which she alleged was its successor-in-interest, and to add MHG 31st Street LLC and Crescent Hotels & Resorts LLC as defendants.

The court explained that a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. Because the case was based on diversity jurisdiction, the complaint had to allege the citizenship of the members of the relevant limited liability companies, including the citizenship of members that were themselves limited liability companies. The proposed amended complaint did not provide those allegations for the individual limited liability companies connected to the proposed new defendants.

On August 8, 2022, the court ordered Bouzekri to file an amended complaint correcting those deficiencies by August 15, 2022. On August 10, 2022, Bouzekri voluntarily dismissed the claims against ABC Corporations 1-100 and CHSP without prejudice. She did not file the required amended complaint by the August 15 deadline.

Ruling

The court dismissed the case without prejudice and without costs, including attorneys' fees. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged violations of the New York Human Rights Law or New York City Human Rights Law occurred. The dismissal was based on the failure to file the required amended complaint after the court identified deficiencies in the allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction.

Effect of the ruling

The court used the phrase “without prejudice,” meaning the order did not bar refiling based on that dismissal. The opinion does not state what further action, if any, the parties took after the case was closed.