Mezrow v. Hotel Hayden
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-03755
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mezrow v. Hotel Hayden, Judge Furman ordered Max Mezrow to correct citizenship allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction or face dismissal without prejudice.
Max Mezrow and the five defendants are affected. Mezrow was required to amend the complaint to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction; otherwise, the court stated that it would dismiss the case without prejudice.
What happened
In Mezrow v. Hotel Hayden, Max Mezrow sued five defendants and claimed that the federal court had jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states. The court found that the complaint did not properly allege the citizenship of the defendants or of Mezrow.
The court explained that a corporation’s citizenship depends on its state or country of incorporation and its principal place of business. A limited liability company’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of all its members. The complaint instead used general descriptions of the defendants and did not appear to identify the citizenship of Fortuna Hotel Collection; it also alleged Mezrow’s residence rather than his citizenship.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Mezrow to file an amended complaint properly alleging every party’s citizenship by May 17, 2023. The court stated that it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice if he did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction by that date.
The detailed version
- Mezrow v. Hotel Hayden · No. 1:23-cv-03755
- Jesse Furman
- May 11, 2023
Background
Max Mezrow brought the action against five defendants. The complaint invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows certain cases between citizens of different states or countries to be heard in federal court.
Jurisdictional Allegations
The court explained that a corporation’s citizenship must be pleaded by identifying its state or country of incorporation and its principal place of business. An LLC’s citizenship is based on the citizenship of each of its members, including the members of any LLC that is itself a member. Therefore, a complaint relying on diversity jurisdiction must identify the citizenship of natural-person members and the required corporate information for corporate members.
The court held that the complaint did not properly allege any defendant’s citizenship. Instead, it stated conclusorily that each defendant was a New York corporation, a foreign corporation, an unincorporated association, a public corporation, a partnership, or a sole proprietorship. The court also noted that the complaint did not appear to mention the citizenship of Fortuna Hotel Collection. In addition, the complaint alleged Mezrow’s state of residence rather than his state of citizenship, and residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes.
Order
The court ordered Mezrow to file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of all parties no later than May 17, 2023. If he did not file an amended complaint establishing the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by that date, the court stated that it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed at the time of this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.