Rosenfield & Company, PLLC v. Trachtenberg, Rodes & Friedberg LLP
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-03858
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosenfield & Company v. Trachtenberg, Judge Rochon required citizenship disclosures before considering the parties’ discovery-extension request.
Rosenfield & Company, the defendants, and the relevant members of the limited liability companies and partners of the limited liability partnerships were affected. Rosenfield & Company had to provide sworn citizenship information for the parties and the ownership chains before the court would consider the requested discovery extension.
What happened
Rosenfield & Company, PLLC v. Trachtenberg, Rodes & Friedberg LLP concerns the parties’ joint request for about eight more months to complete discovery. The court noted that only limited discovery had occurred and that substantial document discovery was needed before depositions.
The case was based on diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete citizenship differences between the opposing parties. The complaint identified some business locations but did not identify the citizenship of the members of its limited liability companies or the partners of its limited liability partnerships.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Rosenfield & Company to submit, by December 9, 2022, a letter supported by sworn affidavits identifying the citizenship of every party and the relevant ownership chain. The court postponed ruling on the discovery request and stated that the case would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the plaintiff could not show a good-faith basis for complete diversity.
The detailed version
- Rosenfield & Company, PLLC v. Trachtenberg, Rodes & Friedberg LLP · No. 1:21-cv-03858
- Rochon
- Dec. 2, 2022
Background
The case was filed on April 30, 2021. The court had set December 1, 2022, as the deadline for completing fact discovery. The parties reported that only limited discovery had occurred and that substantial document discovery was still needed before depositions. They jointly requested an approximately eight-month extension of the discovery deadlines.
Jurisdiction issue
Rosenfield & Company brought the case under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The complaint alleged that Rosenfield & Company was a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida, and that it had additional offices in New York, New Jersey, and California. It alleged that the defendants included corporations, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships with principal places of business in New York.
The court found that the complaint did not allege the citizenship of the members of the limited liability companies or the partners of the limited liability partnerships. For a limited liability company, citizenship depends on the citizenship of every member. For a limited liability partnership, citizenship depends on the citizenship of every partner. If an ownership member or partner is itself a noncorporate entity, the citizenship inquiry continues through the ownership chain until the citizenship of each relevant individual and corporation is identified.
Order
The court declined to rule on the parties’ request for a substantial discovery-extension until it was satisfied that subject-matter jurisdiction existed. It ordered Rosenfield & Company, by December 9, 2022, to file a letter supported by one or more sworn affidavits alleging the citizenship of each party, including the citizenship of each limited liability company member and limited liability partnership partner and the members or partners further down the ownership chain. The filing also had to show that complete diversity existed.
The order did not dismiss the case. It stated that if Rosenfield & Company could not allege a good-faith basis for complete diversity, the action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice to the parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.