Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2023

Challenger Holdings LLC v. Jetcraft Global Limited

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:23-cv-05147
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Challenger Holdings v. Jetcraft Global, Judge Castel ordered Challenger to clarify citizenship or face dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Challenger Holdings LLC must amend its complaint to allege George Tsingos’s citizenship; otherwise, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

What happened

Challenger Holdings LLC sued Jetcraft Global (UK) Limited based on diversity jurisdiction. Challenger alleged that its sole member, George Tsingos, resides in Texas, but it did not allege his citizenship.

The court explained that a limited liability company has the citizenship of each member and that residence is not the same as citizenship, which depends on domicile. The court gave Challenger 14 days to amend its complaint to state George Tsingos’s citizenship.

Judge P. Castel ordered that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice if Challenger does not amend or cannot truthfully allege diversity of citizenship.

The detailed version

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

Case
Challenger Holdings LLC v. Jetcraft Global Limited · No. 1:23-cv-05147
Judge
P. Castel
Date
June 21, 2023

Background

Challenger Holdings LLC brought the action against Jetcraft Global (UK) Limited and invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The complaint alleged that Challenger was organized under Delaware law, had its principal place of business in Plano, Texas, and had George Tsingos as its sole member. It alleged that Tsingos resided in Texas and described Challenger as a Texas citizen. It also alleged that Jetcraft was organized under the laws of England and Wales and had its principal place of business in London.

Jurisdictional issue

The court explained that an action based on diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of every member of a limited liability company. For an individual member, citizenship is determined by domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment—not merely by residence. Because the complaint alleged where Tsingos resided but did not allege his citizenship, the court found that the jurisdictional allegations were insufficient.

Order

The court ordered Challenger to amend its complaint within 14 days to allege George Tsingos’s citizenship. Judge P. Castel stated that if Challenger failed to amend by that deadline or could not truthfully allege diversity of citizenship, the action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice to any party.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.