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 another amendment to establish citizenship for jurisdiction and warned of dismissal if defects remain.
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC must provide more specific citizenship allegations and a redline with any further amended complaint. Tree Guardian USA, LLC and the other defendants are affected because the case may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the defect is not cured.
What happened
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Tree Guardian USA, LLC concerns whether the complaint adequately establishes the parties’ citizenship for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court had previously ordered Insured Advocacy Group to provide that information for each person or entity comprising the limited partnership that owns its membership interests.
Insured Advocacy Group amended its complaint, alleging that the limited partner of Schroder FOCUS II Holdings, L.P. is Schroder FOCUS II Master B, L.P., which is a citizen of Delaware. But it alleged only that the entities and individuals connected to that partnership were not citizens of Louisiana, rather than identifying the citizenship of each constituent person or entity.
Judge Jesse M. Furman gave Insured Advocacy Group one more opportunity to amend by March 1, 2024, and required a redline showing the changes. The court warned that it will dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if no timely amendment is filed or the next amendment remains inadequate; this order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Tree Guardian USA, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01130
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 27, 2024
Background
The court had previously ordered Insured Advocacy Group, LLC to file an amended complaint adequately alleging the citizenship of each constituent person or entity comprising Schroder FOCUS II Holdings, L.P. That limited partnership owns the membership interests of Insured Advocacy Group, LLC. The citizenship information was needed to determine whether the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case.
Defect in the Amended Complaint
The amended complaint alleged that the limited partner of Schroder FOCUS II Holdings, L.P. is Schroder FOCUS II Master B, L.P., which the complaint described as a citizen of Delaware. But it did not allege the citizenship of each person or entity comprising Schroder FOCUS II Master B, L.P. Instead, it alleged only that the partnership was not domiciled in or a citizen of Louisiana and that none of the individuals who directly or indirectly were its partners, or the partners of Schroder FOCUS II Holdings, L.P., were domiciled in or citizens of Louisiana. The court found those allegations insufficient.
Ruling
The court gave Insured Advocacy Group one more opportunity to amend its complaint and ordered it to do so no later than March 1, 2024. The plaintiff must file a redline showing all differences between the original and revised complaint. The court stated that it would dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice if the plaintiff did not timely file an amended complaint or again failed to adequately allege citizenship. The order did not dismiss the action at that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.