Tao v. Elite Cold Storage, LLC

Background

Mingqui Tao and Jain Tao sued Elite Cold Storage, LLC, Joseph Newman, and Elieze Delgado, Jr., seeking recovery for personal injuries and loss of consortium related to an alleged assault. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were residents of Kings County and Rockland County, that Newman and Delgado were residents of New Jersey, that Newman had an ownership interest in Elite, that Delgado was an Elite employee, and that Elite did business in New Jersey.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to explain why federal subject-matter jurisdiction and venue existed. The plaintiffs later stated that complete diversity existed and listed New Jersey addresses for the defendants. The defendants argued that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. Newman submitted a declaration stating that he resided in Staten Island and that his brother Thomas Newman, also a member of Elite, resided on Long Island.

Jurisdictional analysis

Federal courts may hear a case based on a federal question or, under diversity jurisdiction, when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists.

For individuals, citizenship depends on domicile—the person’s fixed home and intended home—not simply residence. For a limited liability company, citizenship depends on the citizenship of each member. The court found that the plaintiffs had alleged residence rather than citizenship or domicile for Newman and Delgado. The plaintiffs also had not identified the citizenship of each member of Elite. Because the plaintiffs did not allege facts sufficient to establish complete diversity, they failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.

The complaint also briefly cited 18 U.S.C. § 351(e), a federal criminal statute concerning assault on Members of Congress and other federal officials. The court concluded that the complaint did not show that federal law created the plaintiffs’ civil cause of action or that their right to relief depended on a substantial federal question. The court noted that violations of the federal Criminal Code generally cannot support a civil claim without an express or implied private right of action, and the plaintiffs did not suggest that one existed here.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs were not barred from refiling. To the extent they had a good-faith basis to file an amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction, the court required them to do so within 30 days of the order. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order.