SPORT-BLX, Inc. v. Salerno
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-08111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In SPORT-BLX v. Salerno, Judge Schofield ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s request for information about Cypress’s members and diversity jurisdiction.
SPORT-BLX, Inc. and the Defendants are affected: Defendants were directed to file a responsive letter concerning Plaintiff’s request for information about Cypress’s members and the basis for diversity jurisdiction.
What happened
In SPORT-BLX, Inc. v. Salerno, Plaintiff asked the court to require Defendants to provide the identities of Cypress’s upstream members so the court could verify federal diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff argued that Defendants’ amended removal notice did not specifically identify Cypress’s members or their citizenship. Defendants opposed providing the requested identities, although they offered to provide some information.
Judge Lorna Schofield ordered Defendants to file a response, no longer than three pages, by October 14, 2022. The provided opinion does not show a ruling on the requested discovery or on whether the case would remain in federal court.
The detailed version
- SPORT-BLX, Inc. v. Salerno · No. 1:22-cv-08111
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
The case was removed from state court. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Defendants’ initial removal notice failed to allege the citizenship of the parties and that the amended notice still did not adequately allege the citizenship of Cypress, which the letter described as a Delaware limited partnership.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited partnership’s citizenship generally depends on the citizenship of all its members, including members further upstream in the ownership structure. Plaintiff argued that the amended notice’s general statement that Cypress’s partners were citizens of New Jersey did not identify the members or provide sufficiently specific citizenship information.
Plaintiff’s Request
Plaintiff asked the court to order Defendants to provide the identities of all known upstream members of Cypress. Plaintiff argued that this information was needed to determine whether complete diversity existed and that the information was relevant, nonprivileged discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
According to Plaintiff’s letter, Defendants opposed providing the members’ identities. Defendants’ counsel reportedly offered to seek approval for an attorneys’-eyes-only disclosure, but Plaintiff argued that this would not adequately address the jurisdictional issue.
Plaintiff asked the court either to order immediate production of the information or to remand the case to state court. These requests were Plaintiff’s positions; the provided text does not show that the court granted either request.
Court’s Action
The court ordered Defendants to file a responsive letter of no more than three pages by October 14, 2022. The order was signed by Judge Lorna Schofield on October 11, 2022.
The provided text does not contain a final ruling on jurisdiction, jurisdictional discovery, remand, or the merits of the underlying dispute. It therefore shows a procedural case-management or jurisdiction-related directive rather than a decision resolving the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.