Akno 1010 Market Street St. Louis Missouri LLC v. Nahid Pourtaghi, 43 F.4th 624

Akno 1010 Market Street St. Louis Missouri, LLC sued Canadian resident Nahid Pourtaghi in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).
The complaint alleged only that the plaintiff LLC was “organized under the laws of Michigan” and did not identify the citizenship of its members or sub-members.
Plaintiff’s sole member at filing was Akno Enterprises Michigan Limited, LLC, whose sole member was Akno Group (a Swiss holding company) wholly owned by an Italian citizen, suggesting the plaintiff may have been a foreign citizen.
The parties litigated for over three years (motions to dismiss, discovery, cross-motions for summary judgment); the district court granted summary judgment for Pourtaghi.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit questioned subject-matter jurisdiction, ordered supplemental briefing, and concluded the record did not establish complete diversity at the time of filing.
The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for the district court to determine subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that post-filing corporate restructuring is irrelevant to jurisdictional analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of citizenship pleading for diversity jurisdiction	Alleging the LLC is organized in Michigan is sufficient to invoke diversity	The complaint fails to allege the citizenship of the LLC’s members and sub-members, so diversity is not established	Court held the plaintiff did not adequately establish citizenship; vacated judgment and remanded for the district court to resolve subject-matter jurisdiction
How to determine an LLC’s citizenship	Plaintiff treated the LLC as a Michigan citizen by organization	LLC citizenship follows the citizenship of its members and sub-members (not state of organization)	Court reiterated Delay: LLCs have citizenship of their members/sub-members; organization state insufficient
Effect of post-filing corporate restructuring on jurisdiction	Plaintiff’s later restructuring can affect current jurisdictional posture	Jurisdiction is assessed based on the parties’ status at the time the action was filed	Court held Grupo Dataflux controls: look to the state of things at filing; post-filing changes are irrelevant

Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003 (6th Cir. 2009) (LLC citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members and sub-members)
U.S. Motors v. Gen. Motors Eur., 551 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2008) (foreign parties on both sides destroy complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2))
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (party asserting diversity bears burden to establish citizenship; courts have independent obligation to determine SMJ)
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (jurisdiction depends on parties’ status at the time the action is filed)
Prime Rate Premium Fin. Corp., Inc. v. Larson, 930 F.3d 759 (6th Cir. 2019) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction requires dismissal regardless of litigation progress)
Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff may amend complaint to cure jurisdictional pleading defects)