Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 12, 2023

Betham v. Avon Products Inc

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:23-cv-04681
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Betham v. Avon Products, Judge Subramanian dismissed the case without prejudice after finding no complete diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Alexander Betham, Lynn Betham, Avon Products Inc., and the other named defendants; the action was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.

What happened

Alexander Betham and Lynn Betham sued Avon Products Inc. and other defendants in federal court, relying on diversity of citizenship as the basis for federal jurisdiction.

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. It found that the plaintiffs and at least three defendants were citizens of foreign states and concluded that complete diversity was missing.

Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also ruled that pending motions were moot, canceled scheduled conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Betham v. Avon Products Inc · No. 1:23-cv-04681
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Sept. 12, 2023

Background

Alexander Betham and Lynn Betham brought this action against Avon Products Inc. and other defendants. The complaint relied on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Jurisdictional issue

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires “complete” diversity: no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The court stated that the plaintiffs and at least three defendants were citizens of foreign states, citing the first amended complaint. It concluded that complete diversity was not present and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case.

Ruling

Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court stated that any pending motions were moot, canceled any conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.