Lazar v. Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

S.D. New York

Lazar v. Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

DecidedAugust 7, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-06449

StatusUnknown

This text of Lazar v. Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lazar v. Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) 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

Lazar v. Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVID LAZAR, Plaintiff, 25 Civ. 6449 ~ ORDER CYCLACEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and DATUK DR. DORIS WONG SING EE, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On August 6, 2025, plaintiff filed the complaint, asserting diversity of citizenship of the parties as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. The Complaint, however, does not clearly establish the requisite diversity. It alleges that plaintiff is a citizen of Panama, id. {] 6, that defendant Datuk Dr. Doris Wong Sing Ee is a citizen of Malaysia, id. § 8, and that Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and Malaysia, id. 7. However, Second Circuit caselaw makes clear that when there are foreign citizens on both sides of the dispute, no diversity jurisdiction exists. ‘See F5 Cap. v. Pappas, 856 F.3d 61, 75 (2d Cir. 2017) (Diversity is lacking within the meaning of § 1332(a)(2) where the only parties are foreign entities, or where on one side there are citizens and aliens and on the opposite side there are only aliens,” (cleaned up)); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecommunications, S.a.r.1,790 F.3d 411, 424 (2d Cir. 2015) (same); Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012) (same). To enable the Court to reliably determine whether there is diversity of citizenship, plaintiff must submit to the Court, by August 15, 2025, a letter, filed on ECF, setting out the citizenship of all parties, the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any

corporate entities, and the factual bases for these conclusions. See 28 U.S.C, § 1332(c); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010); Curley v. Brignoli, Curley & Roberts Assocs., 9135 F 2d 81, 83 (2d Cir, 1990) (“[S}ubject matter jurisdiction is an unwaivable sine qua non for the exercise of federal judicial power.”). SO ORDERED. p al A PAUL A. ENGEEMESHE United States District Judge Dated: August 7, 2025 New York, New York

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVID LAZAR, Plaintiff, 25 Civ. 6449 ~ ORDER CYCLACEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and DATUK DR. DORIS WONG SING EE, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On August 6, 2025, plaintiff filed the complaint, asserting diversity of citizenship of the parties as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. The Complaint, however, does not clearly establish the requisite diversity. It alleges that plaintiff is a citizen of Panama, id. {] 6, that defendant Datuk Dr. Doris Wong Sing Ee is a citizen of Malaysia, id. § 8, and that Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and Malaysia, id. 7. However, Second Circuit caselaw makes clear that when there are foreign citizens on both sides of the dispute, no diversity jurisdiction exists. ‘See F5 Cap. v. Pappas, 856 F.3d 61, 75 (2d Cir. 2017) (Diversity is lacking within the meaning of § 1332(a)(2) where the only parties are foreign entities, or where on one side there are citizens and aliens and on the opposite side there are only aliens,” (cleaned up)); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecommunications, S.a.r.1,790 F.3d 411, 424 (2d Cir. 2015) (same); Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012) (same). To enable the Court to reliably determine whether there is diversity of citizenship, plaintiff must submit to the Court, by August 15, 2025, a letter, filed on ECF, setting out the citizenship of all parties, the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any

corporate entities, and the factual bases for these conclusions. See 28 U.S.C, § 1332(c); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010); Curley v. Brignoli, Curley & Roberts Assocs., 9135 F 2d 81, 83 (2d Cir, 1990) (“[S}ubject matter jurisdiction is an unwaivable sine qua non for the exercise of federal judicial power.”). SO ORDERED. p al A PAUL A. ENGEEMESHE United States District Judge Dated: August 7, 2025 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lazar v. Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazar-v-cyclacel-pharmaceuticals-inc-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack