928 F. Supp. 2d 694
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Techno-TM LLC sues Fire-away, Inc. for breach of contract in federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
- Techno-TM must prove complete diversity; a limited liability company’s citizenship is that of its members.
- Techno-TM identified four members: Maryann Huhs, Roy Huhs Jr., John Huhs, Michael Huhs; residence details provided for each at filing.
- Defendants in the action are Delaware and Minnesota citizens; Techno-TM asserted diversity from Washington residents as well.
- The Washington action involving some same defendants suggested potential diversity removal dynamics; removal notices and subsequent proceedings raised questions about domicile and potential estoppel.
- Court ultimately dismisses the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to unresolved domicile issues and judicial estoppel concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complete diversity exists given Huhs domicile. | Techno-TM must prove Maryann and Roy were Washington domiciled. | Inconsistent statements undermine Washington domicile. | No subject matter jurisdiction; diversity not established. |
| Whether judicial estoppel bars the Washington domicile assertions. | Estoppel does not apply to jurisdictional facts. | Inconsistent positions before courts invoke estoppel. | Judicial estoppel applies to undermine domicile assertions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrick Co., Inc. v. SCS Commc’ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.2001) (complete diversity required for § 1332(a))
- Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 48 (2d Cir.2000) (citizenship of LLC determined by members)
- Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945 (2d Cir.1998) (domicile governs citizenship for diversity)
- Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys. Inc., 426 F.3d 635 (2d Cir.2005) (evidence permissible to determine jurisdiction; focus on intent)
- Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236 (2d Cir.2004) (consideration of multiple residences and intent to reside)
- Kamen v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 791 F.2d 1006 (2d Cir.1986) (burden to prove jurisdictional facts by preponderance)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel and integrity of the judicial process)
- Intellivision v. Microsoft Corp., 484 Fed.Appx. 616 (2d Cir.2012) (whether judicial estoppel applies to jurisdictional matters)
- Creaciones Con Idea, S.A. de C.V. v. Mashreqbank PSC, 232 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.2000) (caution in applying estoppel to jurisdictional issues)
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (estoppel principles; jurisdictional limits)