Mave Hotel Investors LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London
- Clarke
- 1:21-cv-08743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mave Hotel Investors v. Certain Underwriters, Judge Clarke ordered briefing on whether diversity jurisdiction could be cured.
Mave Hotel Investors LLC, the Plaintiff-Intervenor, and the defendants were affected because the court required briefing on whether federal diversity jurisdiction existed or could be established.
What happened
Mave Hotel Investors LLC asked the court to address concerns about diversity jurisdiction, which the parties admitted was lacking when the case began. It proposed changing the parties or pleadings to create a basis for federal jurisdiction.
The court questioned whether it had authority to allow either proposed change because jurisdiction was absent at the case’s inception. It also noted that the Plaintiff-Intervenor had provided no evidence that diversity jurisdiction existed when its intervenor complaint was filed.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the plaintiff to submit a brief by February 9, 2024, addressing these issues and the basis for jurisdiction after the proposed changes. Other parties could file briefs by February 16, 2024; the order did not decide whether jurisdiction existed or could be cured.
The detailed version
- Mave Hotel Investors LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London · No. 1:21-cv-08743
- Clarke
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
Mave Hotel Investors LLC, doing business as The Mave Hotel, submitted a letter about diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear certain disputes involving parties connected to different states when the statutory requirements are met. The letter proposed two alternatives: allowing Mave Hotel Investors to amend its complaint to remove non-diverse parties and sue the Plaintiff-Intervenor, or allowing the Plaintiff-Intervenor to amend its intervenor complaint and add Mave Hotel Investors as a defendant.
The opinion states that the parties admitted diversity jurisdiction was lacking and had been lacking when the action was filed. The court observed that a complaint may be amended to state jurisdictional facts that existed from the beginning, but questioned whether pleadings could be changed when the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at the case’s inception. The court also noted that Mave Hotel Investors had not explained whether the court had authority to order the first proposed amendment. Regarding the second proposal, Mave Hotel Investors had submitted no evidence that diversity jurisdiction existed when the Plaintiff-Intervenor filed its intervenor complaint.
Order
The court ordered Mave Hotel Investors to submit a brief by February 9, 2024. The brief had to address whether the court or the parties had authority to cure defective diversity jurisdiction through either proposal, provide support that diversity jurisdiction existed when the Plaintiff-Intervenor filed its intervenor complaint, and explain the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction after both proposals were carried out. Any other party seeking to be heard could file a brief by February 16, 2024. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke did not resolve the jurisdictional questions in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.