Third Avenue Commons LLC v. GoBrands, Inc.
| New York Eastern District Court | |
| Judge: | James M Wicks |
| Case #: | 2:25-cv-00934 |
| Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Case Filed: | Feb 18, 2025 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Feb 19, 2025 2:06 AM EST |
|
Defendant
GoBrands, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Third Avenue Commons LLC
|
| Docket last updated: 02/20/2025 11:59 PM EST |
| Thursday, February 20, 2025 | ||
|
order
Order(Other)
Thu 02/20 11:21 AM
ORDER. This Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Joseph v. Leavitt , 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2006). Indeed, it is axiomatic that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts generally entertain cases falling into two categories, namely, cases involving a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1131, and cases where parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1132. Where, as here, an action is removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, complete diversity must exist, meaning that all plaintiffs must be citizens of states diverse from those of all defendants. Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. , 772 F.3d 111, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005)). Importantly, "[t]he existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction... is determined by what is pleaded in the complaint." Godinger Silver Art v. Hirschkorn , 433 F. Supp. 3d 417, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed a citizen of any state in which it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. Tamm v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 858 Fed. App'x 412, 415 (2d Cir. 2021). Moreover, the citizenship of a limited liability company ("LLC") is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. See, e.g., Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Aladdin Capital Management LLC , 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012); Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. Ltd Pship , 213 F.3d 48, 5152 (2d Cir. 2000); White v. Abney , 17-CV-4286 (MKB), 2019 WL 1298452, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019). As such, "[a] complaint premised upon diversity of citizenship must allege the citizenship of natural persons who are members of a limited liability company and the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any corporate entities who are members of the limited liability company." New Millennium Capital Partners, III, LLC v. Juniper Grp. Inc. , 2010 WL 1257325, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2010), (citing Handelsman , 213 F.3d at 5152). Generally, "the burden is on the party invoking diversity jurisdiction to prove 'grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete.'" Lanchava v. Ako , No. 24-CV-06053 (HG), 2024 WL 4504713, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2024) (quoting Herrick Co., Inc. v. SCS Commcns , 251 F.3d 315, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2001)). Therefore, like here, where a defendant seeks to remove an action on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction, defendant bears the burden to establish complete diversity. Harmony Prima Lofts, LLC v. Great Am. All. Ins. Co. , No. 1:22-cv-00401, 2022 WL 1567293, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022) ("A party seeking to remove a case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship has the burden of proving that diversity exists."). Here, at this stage of the litigation, on the basis of the Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1), and both state and federal complaints (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3), it is not clear that Defendant has established that this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the Notice of Removal states that "Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than Defendant," specifically that "Plaintiff resides in the state of New York," and that "Defendant is a citizen of the states of Delaware and Pennsylvania." (ECF No. 1 at p. 3.) Additionally, the state court and prior federal court complaint both note that Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under New York law with its principal place of business in New York (ECF No. 1-2 at par. 1; ECF No. 1-3 at par. 1), whereas Defendant is incorporated under Delaware law and maintains its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1-2 at par. 2; ECF No. 1-3 at par. 2.) As such, Defendant, as the removing party, was required to, but fails to, establish the citizenship of the members of Plaintiff's LLC and demonstrate they are not citizens of Delaware or Pennsylvania. Accordingly, Defendant is directed to show cause on or before February 28, 2025 why the Court should not recommend to a District Judge that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 2/20/2025. (JDP) |
||
| Wednesday, February 19, 2025 | ||
| 5 | 5
misc
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Wed 02/19 5:05 PM
Corporate Disclosure Statement by GoBrands, Inc. identifying Other Affiliate Softbank Group Corp. for GoBrands, Inc.. (Carr, Michael) |
|
| 4 | 4
misc
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Wed 02/19 4:39 PM
Corporate Disclosure Statement by GoBrands, Inc. (Carr, Michael) |
|
| 3 | 3
notice
Notice of Opportunity to Consent
Wed 02/19 2:47 PM
Clerks Notice Re: Consent. A magistrate judge has been assigned as the presiding judge in this case as part of a Pilot Program, governed by EDNY Administrative Order 2023-23. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form is also available here:[LINK:https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program.] Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. Unless all parties consent to the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by the deadline set forth in the Administrative Order 2023-23, a District Judge will be assigned to the case. The parties are directed to review the terms of Administrative Order 2023-23 and other materials related to the Pilot Program on the Courts website:[LINK:https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program.] (LJ) |
|
| 2 | 2
misc
Quality Control Check - Attorney Case Opening
Wed 02/19 2:43 PM
This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (LJ) |
|
|
utility
Case Assigned/Reassigned
Wed 02/19 2:46 PM
Case Assigned to Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our[LINK:website] . Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (LJ) |
||
| Tuesday, February 18, 2025 | ||
| 1 | 1
notice
Notice of Removal
Tue 02/18 8:21 PM
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by GoBrands, Inc. from Supreme Court of New York Nassau County, case number 622844/2024. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANYEDC-18776359) (Carr, Michael) |
|
|
Att: 1
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit A Summons & Complaint,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit B Complaint in action 23cv1403 USDC-SDNY,
|
||
|
Att: 4
Exhibit C Affirmation of Service,
|
||
|
Att: 5
Exhibit D Nassau County Supreme Court Minutes
|
||