Island Global Yachting, Ltd. v. Poole Capital, S.A.

S.D. New York

Island Global Yachting, Ltd. v. Poole Capital, S.A.

438 F. Supp. 2d 310, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43226, 2006 WL 1763681

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 23, 2006

Docket06 Civ. 4244(VM)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 438 F. Supp. 2d 310 (Island Global Yachting, Ltd. v. Poole Capital, S.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Island Global Yachting, Ltd. v. Poole Capital, S.A., 438 F. Supp. 2d 310, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43226, 2006 WL 1763681 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

Defendant Poole Capital, S.A. (“Poole”) removed the above-captioned action to this Court from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Poole asserts that this Court has jurisdiction by reason of the diversity of citizenship of the parties. However, both Poole and the plaintiff, Island Global Yachting, Ltd. (“Island”), are alien corporations. The presence of aliens on two sides of a case destroys diversity jurisdiction. See Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786, 790 (2d Cir.1980). Accordingly, the action is remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Complaint identifies Island as a company organized under the laws of the *311 Cayman Islands and alleges . that Island has an office in New York City. The Complaint identifies Poole as an entity organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. A corporation that is incorporated in a foreign state is an alien for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Sty-Lite Co. v. Eminent Sportswear Inc., 115 F.Supp.2d 394, 398 (S.D.N.Y.2000). The allegation that such a corporation does business in New York does not alter the corporation’s status as an alien for diversity purposes. See id. The law in this Circuit is clear that the presence of aliens on two sides of a case destroys diversity jurisdiction. See Corporacion Venezolana, 629 F.2d at 790; Int’l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc., 675 F.Supp. 146, 152 (S.D.N.Y.1987).

A federal court must remand a case if “at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, the proceeding is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

Defendant Poole Capital, S.A. (“Poole”) removed the above-captioned action to this Court from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Poole asserts that this Court has jurisdiction by reason of the diversity of citizenship of the parties. However, both Poole and the plaintiff, Island Global Yachting, Ltd. (“Island”), are alien corporations. The presence of aliens on two sides of a case destroys diversity jurisdiction. See Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786, 790 (2d Cir.1980). Accordingly, the action is remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Complaint identifies Island as a company organized under the laws of the *311 Cayman Islands and alleges . that Island has an office in New York City. The Complaint identifies Poole as an entity organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. A corporation that is incorporated in a foreign state is an alien for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Sty-Lite Co. v. Eminent Sportswear Inc., 115 F.Supp.2d 394, 398 (S.D.N.Y.2000). The allegation that such a corporation does business in New York does not alter the corporation’s status as an alien for diversity purposes. See id. The law in this Circuit is clear that the presence of aliens on two sides of a case destroys diversity jurisdiction. See Corporacion Venezolana, 629 F.2d at 790; Int’l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc., 675 F.Supp. 146, 152 (S.D.N.Y.1987).

A federal court must remand a case if “at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, the proceeding is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 F. Supp. 2d 310, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43226, 2006 WL 1763681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/island-global-yachting-ltd-v-poole-capital-sa-nysd-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack