Opinion
No. 01 Civ. 2394 (LTS)(FM).
April 18, 2001.
ORDER
WHEREAS, this action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint on March 21, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed such Complaint to ascertain the basis for assertion of subject matter jurisdiction in this Court; and
WHEREAS, such Complaint asserts that the Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship ( 28 U.S.C. § 1332), but with respect to the defendant partnerships does not address the state citizenship of the members of the defendant partnerships; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of an artificial business entity other than a corporation is determined by reference to the citizenship of its members, see C.T. Carden v. Arkom a Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990); E.R. Squibb Sons v. Accident Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 925 (2d Cir. 1998); Keith v. Black Diamond Advisors, Inc., 48 F. Supp.2d 326 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); and WHER EAS, "`subject matter jurisdiction is an unwaivable sine qua non for the exercise of federal judicial power,'" E.R. Squibb Sons, 160 F.3d at 929 (citation omitted), and Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action;" it is hereby ORDER ED, that plaintiff shall, no later than April ___, 2001, file and serve an amended Complaint containing allegations sufficient to demonstrate a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court or otherwise show cause in a writing, filed with the Court and served on defendants, as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.