Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Tree Guardian USA, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-01130
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Insured Advocacy Group v. Tree Guardian, Judge Furman ordered an amended complaint clarifying citizenship allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction.
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC, which was ordered to amend its complaint; Tree Guardian USA, LLC and Jacob Guidry, whose alleged citizenship was part of the jurisdictional analysis; and the case generally, because failure to amend could lead to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
What happened
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC sued Tree Guardian USA, LLC and Jacob Guidry in federal court, relying on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires parties to be citizens of different states.
The court found that the complaint did not adequately identify the citizenship of the general and limited partners of Schroder FOCUS II Holdings, L.P., which owns all of Insured Advocacy Group’s membership interests. The court also noted that the complaint’s allegation about Florida appeared irrelevant or mistaken because the defendants were alleged to be citizens of Louisiana.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Insured Advocacy Group to amend its complaint by February 26, 2024, to allege the citizenship of each person or entity comprising the limited partnership. The court said it would dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the complaint was not adequately amended, but it did not dismiss the action in this order.
The detailed version
- Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Tree Guardian USA, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01130
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC brought the action against Tree Guardian USA, LLC and Jacob Guidry. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which permits certain lawsuits between citizens of different states.
The complaint alleged that Schroder FOCUS II Holdings, L.P. owned all membership interests in Insured Advocacy Group and was organized in New York. It did not allege the citizenship of Schroder FOCUS II Holdings’ general or limited partners. For diversity purposes, a limited partnership has the citizenship of each of its general and limited partners. The complaint instead alleged only that none of the partners or owners of FOCUS were domiciled in Florida. The court noted that this allegation appeared irrelevant or mistaken because the defendants were alleged to be citizens of Louisiana, and that a conclusory statement that the partners were not citizens of the same state as the opposing party was insufficient.
Court’s action
The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege the citizenship of the limited partnership that owned the plaintiff and therefore did not properly establish diversity jurisdiction. Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the plaintiff to amend the complaint by February 26, 2024, to allege the citizenship of every person or entity comprising the plaintiff’s limited partnership. The court stated that it would dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice if the plaintiff failed to amend adequately. The order itself did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.