Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-07584
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC, Judge Castel ordered an amended petition clarifying citizenship or the action will be dismissed.
Lanesborough 2000, LLC must file a second amended petition within fourteen days addressing the citizenship allegations for both companies and their members. The order states that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if it does not do so.
What happened
Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC concerns whether the federal court has authority to hear the dispute based on the parties’ citizenship. The petition described the companies’ registrations, business locations, and members’ residences, but did not properly allege the citizenship required for this type of federal jurisdiction.
The court said an individual’s citizenship depends on domicile, not residence. It also noted that the record raised questions about whether Lanesborough’s sole member, Rebecca Stayton, was a citizen of a foreign country. The filings also did not adequately establish Nextres’s members or their citizenship.
Judge Castel ordered Lanesborough to file a second amended petition within fourteen days properly alleging the citizenship of both companies and their members. The order states that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if Lanesborough does not do so.
The detailed version
- Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07584
- P. Castel
- May 10, 2024
Background
Lanesborough 2000, LLC filed an amended petition against Nextres, LLC. The amended petition alleged that Lanesborough was a limited liability company registered in New York, with its principal place of business in Kissimmee, Florida, and that its sole member, Rebecca Stayton, resided in Florida. It alleged that Nextres was a limited liability company registered in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Newtown, Pennsylvania, and that its sole member, Kirk Ayzenberg, resided in Pennsylvania.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court explained that a federal court may hear a case based on diversity jurisdiction only when the parties’ citizenship is properly alleged and the opposing sides are completely diverse. A limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. For an individual member, the relevant fact is domicile—the person’s permanent home—not merely residence. For a corporate member, the pleading must identify the state of incorporation and principal place of business. If a member is another limited liability company, the citizenship of that company’s members must also be alleged.
The court found that the amended petition did not adequately allege the citizenship of either company. It also noted that documents in the record suggested Stayton might be a citizen of a foreign country rather than Florida. Nextres’s amended response likewise did not identify its members or their citizenship, and some mortgage documents referred to Nextres as a corporation rather than a limited liability company.
Order
The court ordered Lanesborough to file a second amended petition within fourteen days that properly alleges the citizenship of Lanesborough and Nextres and their members. The court stated that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if Lanesborough does not comply. Judge Castel did not dismiss the action in this order and did not decide whether complete diversity actually exists.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.