Rivera v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOSUE RIVERA,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY LLC, and
AT&T CORPORATION,
Defendants.
5:26-cv-00489 (BKS/MJK)
Appearances:
Plaintiff pro se:
Josue Rivera
Sackets Harbor, NY 13685
For Defendants:
Andrew Bradford Joseph
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 43rd Floor
New York, NY 10036
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Defendants AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corporation
removed this action from New York State Supreme Court, Jefferson 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) (stating that “[i]t is well established that for a
Case 5:26-cv-00489-BKS-MJK Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 4

case to fit within [§ 1332], there must be complete diversity” between plaintiffs and defendants
(internal quotation marks omitted)). The notice of removal asserts that “the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and Rivera and Defendants are citizens of different states.” (Dkt.
No. 1, ¶ 12). However, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of
Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC’s members. Accordingly, Defendants are 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-00489-BKS-MJK Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 4

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 alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of New York, (Dkt. No. 1,
¶¶1, 15), but alleges only that Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Texas, (id. at ¶¶ 3, 16). As the notice of removal
does not set forth any allegations as to the citizenship of Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC’s
members, 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 Defendants 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 Defendants maintain 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-00489-BKS-MJK Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 4

ORDERED that the Plaintiff may respond to the removing Defendants’ submission, on
or before May 8, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2026
Syracuse, NY
Case 5:26-cv-00489-BKS-MJK Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 4