Park Lane IBS, LLC v. Unbnd Group Pty Ltd.
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-08620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In PARKLANEIBS v. Unbnd, Judge Castel ordered jurisdictional information and allowed amendment before possible remand.
PARKLANEIBS, LLC, Stonehaven, LLC, and Unbnd Group Pty Ltd.; the case may return to New York state court if the federal jurisdictional defects are not corrected.
What happened
PARKLANEIBS, LLC and Stonehaven, LLC v. Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. began in New York state court and was removed to federal court based on alleged diversity of citizenship.
The court found that the removal notice did not identify all members of Stonehaven, LLC or provide complete information about Unbnd Group Pty Ltd.’s citizenship. It gave Unbnd permission to ask Stonehaven one written question about its members’ citizenship and allowed Unbnd 45 days to amend the removal notice.
If Unbnd does not amend the notice or cannot truthfully show complete diversity, the case will be sent back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Castel issued the order on October 5, 2023.
The detailed version
- Park Lane IBS, LLC v. Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-08620
- P. Castel
- Oct. 5, 2023
Background
The petitioners originally brought the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The removal notice asserted diversity jurisdiction, which is federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship being completely different and the amount-in-controversy requirement being satisfied. The opinion addresses the citizenship allegations, but it does not state the amount in controversy.
Jurisdictional deficiencies
The court explained that when a limited liability company is a party, the jurisdictional allegations must identify the citizenship of each of its members. If a member is a corporation, the allegations must also identify the corporation’s state or country of incorporation and its principal place of business. The notice of removal did not allege the citizenship of each member of Stonehaven, LLC.
The court also found that Unbnd described itself in the notice as an “Australian entity,” but did not state that it was incorporated in Australia or identify its principal place of business there. The underlying state-court petition described Unbnd as an Australian entity with its principal place of business in Canberra, ACT, Australia, but those details were not included in the notice of removal.
Order and effect
Within 14 days of the order, Unbnd may serve Stonehaven with one written question seeking the citizenship of all natural-person members and, if any corporation is a member, that corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business. Stonehaven must respond within 14 days.
Within 45 days of the order, Unbnd must amend its removal petition to correct the jurisdictional deficiencies or omissions, including by making a compliant allegation of its own citizenship. If Unbnd fails to amend or cannot truthfully allege complete diversity of citizenship by that deadline, the action will be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice. The court did not remand the action in this order and did not decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.