Generation Next Fashions, LTD v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-09266
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Generation Next Fashions v. JP Morgan Chase, Judge Liman denied a motion to compel fuller address information sought to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Generation Next Fashions, LTD, SportsLife Brands LLC, and the individual defendants identified as Kassin, Levy, Dayan, Zepf, and Tverski.
What happened
Generation Next Fashions, LTD asked the court to require SportsLife Brands LLC and five individual defendants—Kassin, Levy, Dayan, Zepf, and Tverski—to provide complete physical addresses. The plaintiff said the information was needed to establish that the parties were citizens of different states.
The court noted that the plaintiff had not attached the interrogatory responses it referenced, making the precise questions and answers unclear. It also explained that diversity jurisdiction generally depends on citizenship, not specific street addresses; an individual’s citizenship depends on domicile rather than residence alone, and an LLC’s citizenship depends on its members’ citizenship rather than its formation state or principal business location.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to compel and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Generation Next Fashions, LTD v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:21-cv-09266
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 16, 2023
Background
Generation Next Fashions, LTD filed a letter motion asking the court to compel SportsLife Brands LLC to provide more complete responses to jurisdictional interrogatories. The plaintiff said SportsLife identified itself as a Delaware limited liability company with a principal office in New York, New York, but did not provide a physical address. The plaintiff also said SportsLife identified the individual defendants—Kassin, Levy, Dayan, Zepf, and Tverski—by certain cities and states without giving complete physical addresses.
The plaintiff sought the individual defendants’ residential addresses and SportsLife’s principal business establishment address to help establish diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states.
Court’s Analysis
The court first noted that the plaintiff said it had attached SportsLife’s interrogatory responses, but no attachment appeared with the filing. As a result, the court could not determine exactly what questions the plaintiff had asked or what responses SportsLife had provided.
The court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff had not shown entitlement to an order compelling further responses. Diversity jurisdiction turns on whether the parties are citizens of different states, not on a defendant’s specific street address. The court observed that the plaintiff did not appear to dispute that SportsLife had provided city and state information for itself and its members.
The court further explained that an individual’s citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by domicile, while residence or employment location alone is insufficient. Therefore, if the individual defendants had provided the cities and states of their domiciles, the plaintiff was not also entitled to their residential addresses for this jurisdictional purpose. The court also stated that an LLC’s citizenship is based on the citizenship of each member, not the state where the LLC was formed or the location of its principal business.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to compel. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 71.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.