Cur Non Trading, LLC v. ABN AMRO Clearing USA LLC et al.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

CUR NON TRADING, LLC, HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, vy. ! Civil Action ABN AMRO CLEARING USA LLC et al. | No. 1:25-ev-17958 (KMW-MIJS) Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ee ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Cur Non Trading, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 36) concerning the Court’s March 20, 2026, Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No, 34) (“Dismissal Order”), wherein the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (ECF No, 25) without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has considered the Plaintiff’s Motion and, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b), will decide the Motion on the papers without oral argument; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff Cur Non Trading, LLC brought this action against ABN AMRO Clearing USA LLC and John Does I-VI (“Defendants”) asserting various state law claims stemming from Defendants’ alleged mishandling of allocated dividends as Plaintiffs broker, (ECF No, 25 4 4.) In its initial Complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff pled diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cd. at 11); it alleged that Plaintiff's members are citizens of New Jersey and that Defendants are citizens of Tflinois and the Netherlands (id § 8). Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a letter regarding the Parties’ lack of diversity because both of Defendant’s Preferred Members are also citizens of New Jersey. (ECF No. 22); see also Carden vy. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 189 (1990) (explaining that the citizenship of an LLC is determined by that of its

members); Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AET Life LLC, 800 F.3d 412 420 (3d. Cir, 2010). Responsive pleading between the parties followed. (See ECF Nos, 23, 24, 26.) Plaintiff then amended its Complaint (ECF No. 25); and WHEREAS, the Court subsequently dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Parties’ lack of complete diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1332 (ECF No. 34) and, in error, stating that “[nJeither party argue[d] that there is a basis for federal question jurisdiction.” (Ud. at 5 n. 5); and WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration, although not expressly authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is generally treated as either a (1) motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e), or (2) motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). See Rich v. State, 294 F, Supp. 3d 266, 277 (D.N.J. 2018). “The standard for obtaining relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is a high one.” AK. Stamping Co. v. Instrument Specialties Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D.N.J. 2000). “TA] judgment may be altered or amended [only] if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” fd. (quoting Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. vy, Dentsply Int'l Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 Gd Cir, 2010)) (alteration in original); see also Bernard v, EF. Stroudsburg Univ., 700 F. App’x 159, 166 (3d Cir. 2017). To support its Motion for Reconsideration based on a clear error of law, Plaintiff must show that when the Court dismissed its Amended Complaint it overlooked either (1) a dispositive factual matter; or (2) a controlling decision of law. See Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001); and

WHEREAS, the Court’s Dismissal Order (ECF No. 34) did not address Plaintiff's assertion of federal question jurisdiction (ECF No. 25 § 12) and thus “overlooked” relevant controlling law pursuant to Local Rule 7.14); and THE COURT NOTING that in its seven-page Reconsideration Motion, Plaintiff advances complex arguments stating that federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C, § 1331, is proper pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). (See ECF No, 36-1 at 5—6; see also ECF No. 25 § 12.) These significant issues require more thorough analysis than the two pages Plaintiff has provided in its opening brief. (/d.) The Court will not decide the greater jurisdictional issue before the Court without more fulsome briefing, IT IS on this Bary of September, 2026, hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit a brief setting forth the grounds for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Grable on or before October 6, 2026; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file an opposition thereto on or before October 20, 2026; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit a reply, if any, on or before October 27, 2026.

fos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE