Marsh USA Inc. v. Machua Millett
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-06656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marsh USA Inc. v. Michael Machua Millett, Judge Furman ordered Marsh to fix citizenship allegations or face dismissal without prejudice.
Marsh USA Inc. must amend its jurisdictional allegations; the case against Michael Machua Millett could be dismissed without prejudice if Marsh does not adequately allege diversity of citizenship.
What happened
In Marsh USA Inc. v. Michael Machua Millett, the court found that Marsh USA Inc. had not properly alleged the parties’ citizenship for federal diversity jurisdiction.
The court said Marsh needed to identify its state of incorporation and principal place of business, and that identifying the defendant’s residence was not enough to establish citizenship. Marsh had until November 10, 2022, to amend its complaint.
Judge Furman ordered Marsh to correct the allegations and stated that the court would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice if Marsh could not do so.
The detailed version
- Marsh USA Inc. v. Machua Millett · No. 1:22-cv-06656
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 4, 2022
Background
The court had previously ordered Marsh USA Inc. to amend its complaint to allege the citizenship of each party. Marsh filed an amended complaint and later joined a status letter, but the court found that neither adequately corrected the jurisdictional pleading problems.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The case apparently relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires the amount-in-controversy requirement to be met. For a corporation, citizenship includes the state of incorporation and the state where the corporation has its principal place of business. The court noted that Marsh had incorrectly described itself as a limited liability company even though its disclosure statement identified it as a corporation. Marsh did not allege its state of incorporation or principal place of business.
Marsh also alleged the defendant’s residency. The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes.
Order
The court gave Marsh until November 10, 2022, to amend its complaint to adequately allege diversity of citizenship. The court stated that, if Marsh could not do so by that date, it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to either party. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.