L&J Investment Holdings LLC v. SkyLock Industries Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-00135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In L&J Investment Holdings v. SkyLock Industries, Judge Broderick dismissed the complaint without prejudice because diversity jurisdiction was not properly alleged.
L&J Investment Holdings LLC must either amend its complaint within 30 days to properly allege subject-matter jurisdiction or face termination of the action; SkyLock Industries Inc.’s motion was denied as moot.
What happened
L&J Investment Holdings LLC sued SkyLock Industries Inc. in federal court. L&J claimed that the court had jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states. SkyLock separately asked the court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick explained that L&J’s complaint did not identify the citizenship of each member of the limited liability company, as required to establish diversity jurisdiction. The complaint also did not clearly state SkyLock’s principal-place-of-business location. Because the complaint did not properly show that the court had authority to hear the case, the court dismissed it without prejudice and allowed L&J to file an amended complaint.
Judge Broderick gave L&J 30 days to amend the complaint and properly allege subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied SkyLock’s motion as moot, meaning the court did not decide that motion because the complaint was being dismissed for a different reason.
The detailed version
- L&J Investment Holdings LLC v. SkyLock Industries Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00135
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 22, 2024
Background
L&J Investment Holdings LLC filed a complaint against SkyLock Industries Inc. on January 6, 2023. The complaint relied on diversity of citizenship as the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the court’s legal authority to hear the case. SkyLock later moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue.
Jurisdictional Defects
The court found that the complaint did not properly plead diversity jurisdiction. Because L&J is a limited liability company, its citizenship depends on the citizenship of each of its constituent members, not merely on its principal place of business. The complaint did not identify the citizenship of each member. The complaint also did not clearly allege the location of SkyLock’s principal place of business. The court therefore concluded that the complaint, on its face, failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court dismissed L&J’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to replead. L&J was given 30 days to file an amended complaint that properly asserts subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied SkyLock’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue as moot. If L&J did not file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk was directed to terminate the action. Judge Vernon S. Broderick also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 10.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.