C. v. Hapik Ridge Hill LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-02666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In C. v. Hapik Ridge Hill (NY) LLC, Judge Kaplan found jurisdictional allegations inadequate and required amendment by May 4, 2023, or remand.
The plaintiffs and Hapik Ridge Hill (NY) LLC were affected by the court’s jurisdictional order; the action could be remanded to state court if an adequate amended complaint was not filed by May 4, 2023.
What happened
In C. v. Hapik Ridge Hill (NY) LLC, the court questioned whether it had federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the statute cited in the complaint. The court identified inadequate allegations about the citizenship of individuals and business entities, and it also questioned whether removal from state court was timely and joined by all defendants.
The court gave the plaintiffs until May 4, 2023, to file an amended complaint adequately alleging federal jurisdiction. The court said the action would be sent back to state court if they did not do so.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order on April 20, 2023. The order addressed jurisdictional and removal problems, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- C. v. Hapik Ridge Hill LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02666
- Lewis Kaplan
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs sued Hapik Ridge Hill (NY) LLC. The opinion states that federal jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the statute that permits certain cases involving parties with different citizenship to be heard in federal court.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the complaint failed adequately to allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order identified possible deficiencies in allegations concerning:
- the citizenship of one or more individuals; - the citizenship of one or more corporations; - the citizenship of one or more partnerships; - the citizenship of one or more limited liability companies; - the nature and citizenship of one or more business entities; and - the timeliness of removing the action from state court.
The court also stated that the notice of removal had not been joined by all defendants. The order used the phrase “perhaps among other things,” so it did not necessarily identify every jurisdictional defect.
Disposition
The court gave the plaintiffs until May 4, 2023, to file an amended complaint adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that, absent that filing, the action would be remanded to state court. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Judge
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order on April 20, 2023.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.