Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 19, 2022

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Melinta Therapeutics, LLC

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:22-cv-00915
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals v. Melinta Therapeutics: Judge Rochon ordered sworn information about limited partners’ citizenship to address diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., Melinta Therapeutics, LLC, Deerfield Private Design Fund III, L.P., Deerfield Private Design Fund IV, L.P., and the limited partners whose citizenship the parties were ordered to identify.

What happened

In Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Melinta Therapeutics, LLC, the parties relied on diversity of citizenship as the basis for federal jurisdiction. Melinta has two members, Deerfield Private Design Fund III, L.P. and Deerfield Private Design Fund IV, L.P.

Cumberland said it could not determine the identities of the funds’ limited partners from publicly available information. Because a limited liability partnership is considered a citizen of every state where its members are citizens, the court found that the complaint and the parties’ joint letter did not adequately allege the limited partners’ citizenship.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the parties to file a joint letter by October 25, 2022, supported by one or more sworn affidavits, stating the citizenship of the limited partners in both Deerfield funds. The order addressed whether the court had diversity jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Melinta Therapeutics, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00915
Judge
Rochon
Date
Oct. 19, 2022

Background

The parties asserted that federal jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because of diversity of citizenship. Melinta Therapeutics, LLC has two members: Deerfield Private Design Fund III, L.P. and Deerfield Private Design Fund IV, L.P. Cumberland reported that it could not determine from publicly available information the identities of the limited partners of either fund.

Jurisdictional issue

For diversity jurisdiction, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must show that complete diversity exists. The court explained that a limited liability partnership is treated as a citizen of every state in which its general and limited partners are citizens. The complaint and the parties’ joint letter did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of the limited partners of Deerfield Fund III and Deerfield Fund IV.

Order

The court ordered the parties to file, by October 25, 2022, a joint letter on the electronic docket supported by one or more sworn affidavits. The filing must allege the citizenship of the limited partners of both Deerfield funds. This was a jurisdictional information-gathering order; the opinion did not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.