Eddi v. Antebi
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-00520
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eddi v. Antebi, Judge Cronan ordered Eddi to explain diversity jurisdiction before February 5, 2024, or the court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Ely Eddi, who was ordered to explain the basis for federal diversity jurisdiction; the case may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if that requirement is not met.
What happened
In Eddi v. Antebi, Eddi invoked federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. He said he was domiciled in New Jersey and was a member of four defendant limited liability companies.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction generally requires no plaintiff to share citizenship with any defendant, and that a limited liability company has the citizenship of its members. Because Eddi was a member of the defendant companies, the court ordered him to file a letter of no more than three pages explaining why diversity jurisdiction was proper.
The court did not dismiss the case at this stage. Judge John P. Cronan ordered Eddi to file the letter by February 5, 2024, and stated that the action may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if he does not properly establish jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Eddi v. Antebi · No. 1:24-cv-00520
- John Cronan
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
Eddi filed the complaint on January 24, 2024, and again on January 25, 2024. He invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The opinion states that Eddi is domiciled in New Jersey and is a member of defendants 169-171 BH LLC, Downtown NS LLC, 262 BH LLC, and SOMI Retail BH LLC.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, meaning that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The court also explained that a limited liability company takes the citizenship of each of its members. Because Eddi is alleged to be a member of the defendant limited liability companies, the court required him to address why federal diversity jurisdiction would be proper in this case.
Order
The court ordered Eddi to file, by February 5, 2024, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the court may exercise diversity jurisdiction. The court warned that it may dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Eddi fails to properly establish jurisdiction. The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the underlying dispute. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.