Elize et al v. Valu Auto, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDREANNA ELIZE, individually and as the limited
administrator of the Estate of Carlos Elize, deceased and
ANTONIO ELIZE, individually and as the limited
administrator of the Estate of Carlos Elize, deceased;
Plaintiffs,
v.
VALU AUTO, LLC; LINEAGE, INC.; LINEAGE
LOGISTICS SERVICES, PFS, LLC; LINEAGE FOOD
SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC; LINEAGE LOGISTICS
HOLDINGS, LLC; BAY GROVE CAPITAL, INC.; BG
LINEAGE HOLDINGS, LLC; and FRITZ C. PATRICK;
Defendants.
3:26-cv-00550 (BKS/MJK)
Appearances:
For Plaintiffs:
John H. Fisher
The New York Injury & Malpractice Law Firm, P.C.
278 Wall Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiffs Andreanna Elize and Antonio Elize, individually and as limited administrators
of the Estate of Carlos Elize, bring this action against Defendants Valu Auto, LLC; Lineage,
Inc.; Lineage Logistics Services, PFS, LLC; Lineage Food Service Solutions, LLC; Lineage
Logistics Holdings, LLC; Bay Grove Capital, Inc.; BG Lineage Holdings, LLC; and Fritz C.
Patrick; asserting that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims
under the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which grants the federal courts
Case 3:26-cv-00550-BKS-MJK Document 5 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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 to fit within [§ 1332], there must be complete diversity” between
plaintiffs and defendants (internal quotation marks omitted)). The complaint asserts an amount in
controversy that exceeds the jurisdictional amount. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 2). However, the complaint
fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendants Valu Auto, LLC; Lineage Logistics
Services, PFS, LLC; Lineage Food Service Solutions, LLC; Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC;
and BG Lineage Holdings, LLC. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 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))). The party seeking diversity jurisdiction has the burden proving that diversity
exists. Braten v. Kaplan, 406 F. App'x 516, 517 (2d Cir. 2011).
“[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.
2012); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that, for purposes of
Case 3:26-cv-00550-BKS-MJK Document 5 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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 complaint alleges that Defendant Valu Auto, LLC is a New York limited
liability company with its principal place of business in New York, (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 7); Defendant
Lineage Logistics Services, PFS, LLC, is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Michigan, (id. at ¶ 11), Defendant Lineage Food Service Solutions, LLC is a
Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan, (id. at ¶ 12);
Defendant Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Michigan, (id. at ¶13); and Defendant BG Lineage Holdings, LLC
is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan, (id. at ¶
14). But the complaint does not allege the citizenship of any of these Defendants’ members. (See
generally id.). 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 Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum by May 14, 2026, showing cause
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and it is further
ORDERED that if Plaintiffs maintain that there is complete diversity between the
Case 3:26-cv-00550-BKS-MJK Document 5 Filed 04/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
parties, it shall submit supporting evidence, including affidavits, identifying the
citizenship of each member of the limited liability companies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 23, 2026
Syracuse, NY
Case 3:26-cv-00550-BKS-MJK Document 5 Filed 04/23/26 Page 4 of 4