Tao v. Elite Cold Storage, LLC
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-06599
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tao v. Elite Cold Storage, Judge Rochon ordered plaintiffs to show diversity jurisdiction and proper venue before the case could proceed.
Mingqui Tao and Jain Tao were required to provide additional information about citizenship and venue. The defendants were affected because the court questioned whether the case could proceed in the Southern District of New York, but the opinion did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Mingqui Tao and Jain Tao v. Elite Cold Storage, LLC, et al., the plaintiffs brought personal-injury claims based on an alleged assault and battery in New Jersey. They relied mainly on New Jersey law and also cited a federal criminal statute.
The court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case because the complaint did not properly identify the parties’ citizenship. It also questioned whether the Southern District of New York was the proper or convenient place for the case, since the alleged injury occurred in New Jersey and the complaint did not connect the dispute to New York’s Southern District.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by August 15, 2023, a letter supported by sworn affidavits explaining the parties’ citizenship and why the case belongs in that district. Judge Rochon stated that the case may be dismissed for lack of authority to hear it if the plaintiffs cannot show complete diversity.
The detailed version
- Tao v. Elite Cold Storage, LLC · No. 7:23-cv-06599
- Kenneth Karas
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
Mingqui Tao and Jain Tao, represented by an attorney, filed personal-injury claims arising from an alleged assault and battery in New Jersey. The complaint asserted claims under New Jersey statutory and common law and also cited 18 U.S.C. § 351(e), a federal criminal statute concerning the killing or kidnapping of certain federal government officials.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The complaint did not expressly state the basis for federal jurisdiction, but the court understood the plaintiffs to be relying on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants. The court explained that an individual’s citizenship depends on domicile—the person’s fixed home and intended permanent residence—not merely residence. For a limited liability company, citizenship depends on the citizenship of every member, including members farther up the ownership chain when those members are entities.
The court found the allegations insufficient. The complaint described Mingqui Tao as residing in both Kings County and Rockland County, New York, and described Jain Tao as having resided in both counties, but it did not identify either plaintiff’s domicile. The complaint alleged that Elite Cold Storage, LLC maintained its business and warehouse in Carteret Borough, New Jersey, and that Joseph Newman was a partner and resident there. But it did not establish that Newman was the company’s only partner or identify the citizenship of every member of the limited liability company.
Venue
The court also questioned venue, meaning whether this federal district was a legally proper and convenient place to litigate the case. The complaint did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York. It appeared to base the claims on an injury occurring in New Jersey, and it did not allege a connection to the Southern District of New York. The court therefore stated that the district might not be a proper or convenient forum.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file, by August 15, 2023, a letter supported by one or more sworn affidavits. The submission had to identify each party’s citizenship, including each individual’s domicile and the identity and citizenship of every member of the limited liability company and the members further up the ownership chain, and show that complete diversity existed. The plaintiffs also had to explain why the Southern District of New York was a proper and convenient forum. The court stated that the action may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice if the plaintiffs could not allege complete diversity. This order did not decide the merits of the personal-injury claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.