Sevigne v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAMES SEVIGNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC,
Defendant.
5:26-cv-00315 (BKS/MJK)
Appearances:
For Plaintiff:
Edward Averbuch
Morgan & Morgan NY, PLLC
199 Water Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10038
For Defendant:
Ronald E. Joseph
Andrew Keaveney
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C.
120 Broadway, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Defendant Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC removed this action from New York State
Supreme Court, Onondaga County, asserting that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claims under the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
grants the federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the suit is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Universal Builders Supply, 409 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 2005)
Case 5:26-cv-00315-BKS-MJK Document 18 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(stating that “[i]t is well established that for a case to fit within [§ 1332], there must be complete
diversity” between plaintiffs and defendants (internal quotation marks omitted)). The notice of
removal asserts that Plaintiff alleges an amount in controversy that exceeds the jurisdictional
amount. (Dkt. No. 1, at 2; see also Dkt. No. 2, at 4). However, the notice of removal fails to
sufficiently allege Defendant’s citizenship. Accordingly, the Defendant is directed to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“[I]n our federal system of limited jurisdiction . . . the court sua sponte, at any stage of
the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.”
United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 919 v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30
F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Manway Constr. Co. v. Housing Auth. of Harford, 711
F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983)); see Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v.
Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2009) (“‘It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction’ and lack the power to disregard such limits as have been imposed
by the Constitution or Congress.” (quoting Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.
365, 374 (1978))). A party seeking to remove a case to federal court based on diversity of
citizenship has the burden of proving that diversity exists. See CenterMark, 30 F.3d at 301
(“Where . . . jurisdiction is asserted by a defendant in a removal petition, it follows that the
defendant has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”); Sherman v. A.J. Pegno
Constr. Corp., 528 F. Supp. 2d 320, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (stating that “the party invoking
diversity jurisdiction must demonstrate that complete diversity among the parties existed at the
time removal was sought to federal court”).
“[A] limited liability company . . . takes the citizenship of each of its members.”
Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir.
Case 5:26-cv-00315-BKS-MJK Document 18 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
2012); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that, for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company has the citizenship of its membership); see also
ICON MW, LLC v. Hofmeister, 950 F. Supp. 2d 544, 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding that
“complete diversity of parties is lacking because some of the members of [the plaintiff limited
liability company] are citizens of Kentucky and [the defendant] is also a citizen of Kentucky”).
Here, the notice of removal cites to the allegation in the verified complaint, that Plaintiff
is a citizen of Georgia, (Dkt. No. 1, at 2) (citing Dkt. No. 1-1, at 4). The notice of removal,
however, alleges only that Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Missouri (Dkt. No. 1, at 2). Neither the complaint nor the amended
complaint contains any allegation regarding the citizenship of Defendant’s members. (Dkt. No.
2, 12). As such, the allegations are insufficient to show that there is complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties. See, e.g., Long Beach Rd. Holdings, LLC v. Foremost Ins. Co., 75
F. Supp. 3d 575, 584 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (concluding that “diversity of citizenship” was not “a
proper basis of subject matter jurisdiction” where the plaintiff limited liability company did “not
set forth any allegations with respect to its structure or membership”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC shall file a memorandum
by April 24, 2026, showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction; and it is further
ORDERED that if Defendant Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC maintains that there is
complete diversity between the parties, it shall submit supporting evidence, including affidavits
identifying the citizenship of each member of the limited liability company; and it is further
Case 5:26-cv-00315-BKS-MJK Document 18 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERED that the Plaintiff may respond to the removing Defendants’ submission, on
or before May 1, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2026
Syracuse, NY
Case 5:26-cv-00315-BKS-MJK Document 18 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 4