Meredith Hose Company No. 1 v. Plastisol Composites, LLC, 3:17-cv-00332

Plaintiff Meredith Hose Company No. 1, a volunteer fire company organized under Pennsylvania law with its principal place of business in Childs, PA, filed suit in federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Complaint alleges Defendant Plastisol Composites, LLC is a New York "corporation" with a principal place of business in Groton, NY.
The Complaint failed to identify Plastisol’s membership or the citizenship of each member, and mischaracterized an LLC as a corporation.
The court noted that for diversity jurisdiction an LLC takes the citizenship of each member, and complete diversity must exist at the time the action is commenced.
Because the pleadings lacked facts showing the citizenship of each party as of March 22, 2017, the complaint did not adequately plead complete diversity.
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause (by memorandum and supporting affidavits) why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and to serve the order on Defendant; allowed Defendant to respond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has diversity jurisdiction	Plaintiff alleges parties are citizens of different states (PA v. NY)	Defendant asserts (or court notes) that LLC citizenship not established; pleadings insufficient	Court held pleadings insufficient to establish complete diversity; ordered show cause and evidentiary submissions
Proper characterization of defendant entity	Plaintiff treated defendant as a corporation	Defendant is an LLC; citizenship depends on members	Court held LLC citizenship requires listing members; corporate test (state of incorporation/principal place) was inapplicable
Relevant time for determining citizenship	Plaintiff relied on present allegations	Court applies the rule that citizenship is measured at commencement of action	Court held diversity is assessed as of filing date (March 22, 2017)
Scope of relief vs. pleadings	Plaintiff sought declaratory relief in complaint but sought money damages in default judgment papers	Defendant (and rule) requires relief to match what is pleaded	Court noted that a default judgment cannot grant relief beyond what is claimed in the pleadings and flagged inconsistency

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Universal Builders Supply, 409 F.3d 73 (2d Cir.) (complete diversity required for § 1332 jurisdiction)
United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298 (2d Cir.) (courts may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any stage)
Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff must plead facts showing subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 8)
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (U.S.) (jurisdiction depends on facts at time action is filed)
Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42 (2d Cir.) (an LLC takes the citizenship of each member for diversity purposes)
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (U.S.) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (U.S.) (Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself confer federal jurisdiction)