Opinion
21-cv-6115 (VSB)
08-24-2021
MICHAEL FRANKO, Plaintiff, v. OSKAR LEWNOWSKI et al., Defendants.
ORDER
VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
On July 16, 2021, Defendants filed a notice of removal from the New York Supreme Court, New York County, on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter arguing that Defendants' “Notice of Removal is defective because it does not plead . . . defendants' citizenship, ” and instead states only that Defendants are not New Jersey citizens. (Doc. 8, at 1.) Plaintiff's letter was not explicitly a motion for remand, but rather Plaintiff sought to inform me about the issue and see if I needed further clarity on subject-matter jurisdiction in this case. (See Id. at 2.)
On August 23, 2021, Defendants submitted a filing in response to Plaintiff's letter identifying the citizenship of all three Defendants. (Doc. 9.) Based on the representations that Plaintiff made in this filing, I am satisfied that Plaintiff has adequately clarified the citizenship of all Defendants and that the parties are completely diverse. See Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 615 (2d Cir. 2019) (“For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a partnership takes the citizenship of all of its partners.”); Caren v. Collins, 689 Fed.Appx. 75, 76 (2d Cir. 2017) (similar).
That said, when subject-matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity jurisdiction, “complete diversity of all parties is an absolute, bright-line prerequisite to federal subject matter jurisdiction, ” Pa. Pub. Sch. Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2019), meaning that I “may at any time in the course of litigation consider whether such [diversity] jurisdiction exists, ” Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006). Indeed, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Moving forward, either party should inform me if they believe that complete diversity between the parties in this matter does not exist.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that I decline to remand this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) or otherwise, at this time.
SO ORDERED.