United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Hon.
Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge
Plaintiff
Pamela Laeger filed her Complaint on November 7, 2018, naming
Jonathan Laeger, Brian Laeger, and 10 Griffin Park North, LLC
as defendants and attributing this Court's jurisdiction
over the matter to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See [Dkt.
1]. Recognizing the lack of complete diversity, as required
for subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Dkt.
13]; see also E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Accident
& Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 925, 930 (2d Cir. 1998)
(“It is axiomatic that, for diversity jurisdiction to
be available, all of the adverse parties in a suit must be
completely diverse with regard to citizenship.”). In
response, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, removing as a
defendant Jonathan Laeger, who, in addition to Plaintiff, is
a citizen of the state of Washington. See [Dkt. 14].
Despite this attempt to cure the lack of jurisdiction, for
the reasons explained below, Plaintiff has failed to show
that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case and as a result it is DISMISSED.
“It
has long been the case that the jurisdiction of the court
depends upon the state of things at the time of the action
brought.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp.,
L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570 (2004). Based on this rule, this
Court would be required to look at the citizenship of the
parties as alleged in the Complaint originally filed and
would unavoidably find a lack of complete diversity as
between Plaintiff and Defendants and therefore a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. This is because both Plaintiff
and Defendant Jonathan Laeger are citizens of Washington
according to the Complaint. Additionally, the Complaint does
not appear to allege all of the members of the Defendant LLC.
Having failed to plead the citizenship of Defendant 10
Griffin Park North, LLC, Plaintiff has further failed to meet
her burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. See
Bayerische Landesbank v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 692
F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[A] limited liability
company . . . takes the citizenship of each of its
members.”).
There
is an exception to the “time-of-filing” rule if
the party cures the jurisdictional defect by dismissing the
party that destroyed diversity. Grupo Dataflux, 541
U.S. at 572. This exception is only available where the party
being dismissed is not indispensable. Id. Courts
consider the factors listed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 to determine
whether a party is indispensable: “(1) the
plaintiff's . . . interest in a federal forum; (2) the
defendant's . . . interest in avoiding multiple
litigation, inconsistent relief, and sole responsibility for
liability jointly shared, if codefendant is dismissed from
the suit; (3) the absent codefendant's inability to
protect its interests in any judgment rendered; and (4) the
public interest in complete, consistent and efficient
settlement of controversies.” CP Sols. PTE, Ltd. v.
Gen. Elec. Co., 470 F.Supp.2d 151, 156 (D. Conn. 2007)
(citing Envirotech Corp. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
729 F.2d 70, 73 (2d Cir. 1984)). “The burden of proving
jurisdiction is on the party asserting it.” Malik
v. Meissner, 82 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 1996).
Here,
Plaintiff has failed to prove jurisdiction. Defendant
Jonathan Laeger, the party Plaintiff proposes to dismiss in
order to cure the lack of complete diversity, is the central
actor throughout both Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended
Complaint and the Court finds that he is an indispensable
party.
Regarding
the first factor, the Court finds that the Plaintiff does not
seem to have much of an interest in a federal forum. Both her
Complaint and Amended Complaint bring state law claims
arising out of Defendant Jonathan Laeger's violation of
orders from the Superior Court for the State of Washington in
divorce proceedings between Plaintiff and Jonathan Laeger
primarily concerning the sale of a Connecticut property owned
by him and Plaintiff. See [Dkt. 1; Dkt. 14]. As a
result, the Court believes not only that Plaintiff's
interest in a federal forum in very low, but also that
Plaintiff's claims would be more appropriate in the
pending divorce proceeding.
As to
the second factor, because of Jonathan Laeger's critical
role in the alleged conduct, the Court finds that there is
significant potential that his dismissal from the case would
lead to inconsistent relief and multiple lawsuits. Without
Jonathan Laeger in the suit, Defendants Brian Laeger and the
LLC would potentially be saddled with liability for which
Jonathan Laeger may also be responsible. This could lead the
remaining Defendants to try to implead Jonathan Laeger down
the road or to seek contribution from him by initiating
separate lawsuits. Thus, factor two also weighs in favor of
the indispensability of Jonathan Laeger as a defendant.
As to
the third factor, the Court recognizes that Jonathan
Laeger's absence from the lawsuit would make him unable
to protect his interests in any judgment ultimately rendered
in the case. As discussed above, both the Complaint and
Amended Complaint primarily allege conduct by Jonathan
Laeger. If Plaintiff is allowed to remove him from this
lawsuit, he would be unable to rebut her allegations and
defend against conclusions which might impact his liability.
Finally,
regarding factor four, the Court finds that allowing this
case to proceed without Jonathan Laeger would undermine the
public interest in complete, consistent and efficient
settlement of controversies. As discussed in relation to the
preceding three factors, litigating Plaintiff's claims
without Jonathan Laeger would very likely lead to additional
litigation with potentially inconsistent outcomes and
certainly a high degree of inefficiency.
Evaluation
of each of the four factors indicates that Jonathan Laeger is
an indispensable party in this suit. Therefore,
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not fall within the
exception to the time-of-filing rule. Thus, the Court looks
to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in the
original Complaint at the time of filing and finds that
complete diversity was lacking. As a ...