JADAV v. SSN WILLIAMSPORT, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: February 10, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00396
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DINESH JADAV and KUMUD Civil Action No. 23-396 (SDW) (ESK) HOSPITALITY LLC,

Plaintiffs, OPINION

v. February 10, 2023 SSN WILLIAMSPORT, LLC, PETER BHAI a/k/a PIYUSH BHAISADSWALA, PINKY BHAI, a/k/a PINKY BHAISADSWALA, and SSN HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

Defendant.

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon the filing of a complaint (D.E. 1, “Complaint”) by Plaintiffs Dinesh Jadav and Kumud Hospitality LLC (“Plaintiffs”), and the Court having reviewed the Complaint to determine its subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and WHEREAS “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and [this Court] must therefore be certain that there is a basis for [its] authority to hear each suit before proceeding to the merits.” Peace Church Risk Retention Grp. v. Johnson Controls Fire Prot. LP, 49 F.4th 866, 869–70 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010)). “One such basis, diversity jurisdiction, ‘as its name indicates, . . . requires that opposing parties be citizens of diverse states.” Id. at 870 (alteration in original) (quoting GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 2018)). “[T]o meet the strictures of the diversity statute, complete diversity is required, meaning that at the time the complaint is filed, no party can be a citizen of the same state as any opposing party.” Id. (citing Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 & n.9 (3d Cir. 2015)); 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and WHEREAS “[t]hough the absence of complete diversity [would] deprive[] all federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over this action, a federal court always has jurisdiction to

determine its jurisdiction.” Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., 592 F.3d at 418 (citing United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)). Indeed, this Court “ha[s] a continuing obligation to assess subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at all stages of the proceeding, even when parties do not raise the issue.” Peace Church Risk Retention Grp., 49 F.4th at 869 (citing Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 395 (3d Cir. 2004)); and WHEREAS it is “well-established” that an artificial entity other than a corporation assumes the citizenship of all its members. GBForefront, L.P., 888 F.3d at 34 (“A partnership, as an unincorporated business entity, assumes the citizenship of all its partners. . . . Likewise, a limited liability company is a citizen of all the states of its members.” (citing Zambelli Fireworks Mfg.

Co., 592 F.3d at 419–20)). Accordingly, when a member of a partnership or limited liability company brings an action against an entity of which they are a member, complete diversity does not exist and “‘the doors of the federal courts’ are ‘effectively close[d]’ to that action.” Reightler v. Monmouth Bioproducts, LLC, No. 14-3518, 2014 WL 12621233, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2014) (quoting Bankston v. Burch, 27 F.3d 164, 168–69 (5th Cir. 1994)); and WHEREAS Plaintiffs are currently members of Defendant SSN Williamsport, LLC, which is a limited liability company that remains in existence. (D.E. 7.) Consequently, complete diversity does not exist, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action; therefore

2 Plaintiffs’ Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED. An appropriate orders follows.

__/s/ Susan D. Wigenton____ United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk cc: Edward S. Kiel, U.S.M.J. Parties