Fifteen Twenty-One Second Avenue Condominium Association v. Viracon LLC, 2:23-cv-01999

Plaintiff is the Fifteen Twenty-One Second Avenue Condominium Association, representing a Seattle condo building with allegedly defective Insulated Glass Units (IGUs).
Plaintiff seeks recovery from manufacturers and certifiers of the IGUs, claiming design and manufacturing defects and false certification.
Defendants removed the action from Washington state court to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446.
Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing lack of complete diversity because its members’ (unit owners) citizenship should control.
The association is a Washington non-profit corporation; all defendants are organized and have principal places of business outside Washington.
The dispute focuses on whether the citizenship of the association’s members controls for diversity jurisdiction where the association sues on both its own and its members’ behalf.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the citizenship of member unit owners should determine the association’s citizenship for federal diversity jurisdiction	Because Plaintiff sues in a representative capacity for members, their citizenship controls, destroying diversity	Plaintiff is a corporation, so only its citizenship matters, not its members'	Only the corporation's citizenship counts; complete diversity exists
Whether the same principle applies to the IGCC’s members	IGCC’s membership citizenship should control, as they are real parties in interest	IGCC is an incorporated entity, so only its own citizenship matters	IGCC’s status as a corporation means only its own citizenship is relevant
Whether Plaintiff can rely on post-removal amendments to assert member-assignment of claims	Plaintiff’s members are now stated to be assignees of developer/contractor claims, affecting jurisdiction	Removal is judged based on pleadings at time of removal; post-removal assignments don’t count	Post-removal amendments are irrelevant to jurisdiction
Whether Plaintiff is a real party in interest or merely nominal	Plaintiff acts as a conduit for members’ interests, so members are the true parties	Plaintiff also seeks relief for itself as a stakeholder, so it is a real party to the controversy	Plaintiff is a real party in interest; membership citizenship need not be considered

Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (corporate citizenship controls for diversity even for nonprofit member corporations)
Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980) (federal courts look to the real parties to the controversy for jurisdiction)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (jurisdictional rules should be clear and simple)
Airlines Reporting Corp. v. S and N Travel. Inc., 58 F.3d 857 (2d Cir. 1995) (citizenship of represented parties only counts if representative is a mere conduit)