Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-09286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Loancare v. Dimont, Judge Furman gave Loancare one final chance to correct jurisdictional pleading defects before possible dismissal without prejudice.
Loancare LLC must amend its complaint by November 14, 2022, to address the identified jurisdictional pleading defects; the defendants are affected because the case may be dismissed without prejudice if Loancare does not do so.
What happened
In Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC, the court said Loancare had twice failed to properly allege the citizenship of every party needed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court identified missing allegations about ServiceLink Holdings, Inc.’s principal place of business and Steve Stallard’s citizenship. It did not dismiss the case at that time.
Judge Jesse M. Furman gave Loancare until November 14, 2022, to amend its complaint one final time. The court warned that if the defects were not fixed, it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.
The detailed version
- Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09286
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
Loancare LLC brought this case against Dimont & Associates, LLC and other defendants. The court had already ordered Loancare twice to amend its operative complaint to allege the citizenship of each party and establish subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case.
Jurisdictional Defects
The court stated that Loancare’s latest amended complaint still had defects. It did not allege ServiceLink Holdings, Inc.’s principal place of business, and it did not allege Steve Stallard’s citizenship. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) and noted that allegations of residency alone do not establish citizenship.
Ruling
The court said it could dismiss the complaint for failure to plead subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, it granted Loancare until November 14, 2022, to amend its operative complaint one final time. The court warned that it would not provide another warning and that the case would instead be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice if Loancare’s next attempt failed. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.