Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Tree Guardian USA, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-01130
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Insured Advocacy Group v. Tree Guardian USA, Judge Furman dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC and the defendants, including Tree Guardian USA, LLC, were affected because the action was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed.
What happened
Insured Advocacy Group, LLC sued Tree Guardian USA, LLC and other defendants, but its complaint did not adequately state the parties’ citizenship, which is required for diversity jurisdiction.
The court gave the plaintiff two opportunities to correct the problem. The plaintiff filed one amended complaint, but it still did not adequately allege citizenship, and the plaintiff did not file another amendment by the court’s deadline.
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also found pending motions moot, canceled conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Tree Guardian USA, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01130
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
The plaintiff’s first complaint did not adequately allege the parties’ citizenship and therefore did not properly invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The court directed the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, but that pleading also failed to adequately allege citizenship.
Opportunity to Amend
The court gave the plaintiff one more opportunity to amend the complaint by March 1, 2024, and warned that it would dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the plaintiff either failed to amend by that date or again failed to adequately allege citizenship. The plaintiff did not file another amended complaint by the deadline.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court stated that any pending motions were moot, canceled any conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The dismissal was based on the failure to adequately establish federal jurisdiction; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.