Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 18, 2023

Wieder v. Advanced Bionics Corporation

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-10759
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wieder v. Advanced Bionics, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiffs to disclose Advanced Bionics LLC’s members’ citizenship to assess diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The order affects Feige Wieder, Joel Wieder, and L.W. through their counsel, who must provide information about the members and citizenships of Advanced Bionics LLC; it also affects all parties because the court is assessing whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists.

What happened

In Wieder v. Advanced Bionics Corporation, Feige Wieder and Joel Wieder brought a case against Advanced Bionics Corporation, Advanced Bionics LLC, and Sonova USA Inc., relying on diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction.

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. Because Advanced Bionics LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of each of its members, the complaint’s statements that the company was located in California and organized under Delaware law were not enough.

The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to submit, by January 25, 2023, a detailed letter identifying the members of Advanced Bionics LLC and their citizenships. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not yet decide whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wieder v. Advanced Bionics Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-10759
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Jan. 18, 2023

Background

Feige Wieder and Joel Wieder, individually and as parent and guardian of L.W., brought this action against Advanced Bionics Corporation, Advanced Bionics LLC, and Sonova USA Inc. The plaintiffs invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Jurisdictional issue

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant. For a limited liability company, citizenship is based on the citizenship of each individual or entity that is a member of the company.

The complaint alleged that Advanced Bionics LLC was located in Valencia, California, and existed under Delaware law. But it did not identify the LLC’s members or their citizenships. Those allegations therefore did not provide the information needed for the court to determine whether complete diversity exists.

Order

The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to submit, by January 25, 2023, a letter explaining in detail the citizenship of Advanced Bionics LLC’s constituent members. The order sought information needed to determine subject matter jurisdiction; it did not decide whether jurisdiction exists.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.