Sonix Carriers Inc. v. SVES LLC

Background

Sonix Carriers, Inc. brought the action against SVES LLC, SVES Apparel LLC, and SVES Go LLC, seeking damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ failure to pay approximately 641 invoices and repeated contract breaches. The complaint asserted federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Sonix is a corporation organized in New Jersey and headquartered in New York. The three defendants are limited liability companies organized and registered under Florida law, with corporate offices in Florida. Salomon Murciano is a member of each defendant LLC. The court explained that an LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of all its members. Thus, diversity jurisdiction would be unavailable if Murciano was domiciled in New York, like Sonix.

Motion to File a Sur-Reply

Sonix asked for permission to file a sur-reply, which is an additional response to an opposing party’s reply. Sonix argued that Defendants had submitted new documents and had not addressed two allegations from Sonix’s opposition. The court denied the request because Defendants had not raised new arguments for the first time in their reply. Sonix also had not provided the court with a copy of the proposed sur-reply.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal power to hear a case. The party asserting jurisdiction—in this case, Sonix—had to prove that jurisdiction existed.

The court considered evidence outside the complaint, including declarations. It noted that a person’s domicile depends on residence and intent to remain indefinitely. When evidence points to more than one residence, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including voting registration, vehicle registration, bank accounts, organizational memberships, business activities, taxes, the nature of residences, and the locations of medical and professional providers. A person claiming to have changed domicile must prove the change by clear and convincing evidence.

The parties agreed that Murciano was domiciled in New York in 2019. Sonix presented evidence supporting a change to Florida, including Murciano’s purchase of a Florida condominium, payment of taxes in Florida, voter registration in Florida, and statements that Florida was his permanent home. Murciano’s own declarations described continuing ties to New York, including living in Manhattan with a child, conducting business from New York, having children who lived and attended school there, belonging to a New York synagogue, keeping his cars and personal bank accounts in New York, and receiving nearly all of his medical care there.

The court concluded that the evidence of Murciano’s domicile in New York and Florida conflicted. Sonix therefore had not established by clear and convincing evidence that he changed his domicile from New York to Florida. The court treated New York as Murciano’s presumptive domicile. Because Sonix was a New York corporation and Murciano was a member of all three defendant LLCs, complete diversity was absent.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for leave to file a sur-reply and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The ruling did not decide whether Defendants failed to pay the invoices or breached their contracts.