Ankura Consulting Group, LLC v. Mortazavi
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-02385
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Ankura Consulting Group v. Mortazavi, Judge Broderick remanded the contract case because federal diversity jurisdiction was not established.
Ankura Consulting Group, LLC and Mohammad Mortazavi. The federal case was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York; the opinion did not decide Mortazavi’s motion to dismiss or alternative motion to transfer.
What happened
Ankura Consulting Group, LLC sued Mohammad Mortazavi over a contract dispute in New York state court. Mortazavi moved the case to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states.
An LLC has the citizenship of all its members. Mortazavi acknowledged that Ankura was owned through another company with eight limited partners who were all residents of California, but he did not prove that complete diversity existed. He also did not show that the federal court had authority to hear the case.
Judge Broderick granted Ankura’s motion to send the case back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. He did not decide Mortazavi’s motion to dismiss or his alternative request to transfer the case, and the federal clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Ankura Consulting Group, LLC v. Mortazavi · No. 1:22-cv-02385
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 17, 2022
Background
Ankura Consulting Group, LLC brought breach-of-contract claims against Mohammad Mortazavi in New York state court. Mortazavi removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, relying on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.
An LLC has the citizenship of each of its members. The opinion states that Ankura was wholly owned by Ankura Intermediate Holdings, LP, which had eight limited partners who were all residents of California. The opinion also states that Mortazavi acknowledged this ownership structure but argued that the connection to California was too weak to defeat diversity. Mortazavi moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, transfer it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Ankura moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the party removing a case must prove that complete diversity exists. Because Mortazavi removed the case, he had the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction was proper. The court rejected Mortazavi’s argument that Ankura had to identify all of its members and their citizenship to prove that diversity was absent. The court held that Mortazavi had not met his burden of showing complete diversity.
Because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the case—the court could not decide the motion to dismiss or the alternative motion to transfer.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Ankura’s motion to remand. The case was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and the federal clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not resolve Mortazavi’s motion to dismiss or motion to transfer.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.