King Boy Baby Products, Ltd. v. Cotton Babies, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than Monday, November 27, 2023, Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint, consistent with this Memorandum and Order, that establishes this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike, Doc. 10 , is DENIED without prejudice as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 12 , is DENIED without prejudice as moot. (Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 11/27/2023.) Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 11/15/2023. (TMT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
KING BOY BABY PRODUCTS, LTD.,
COTTON BABIES, INC.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01239-MTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the Complaint. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). The Court concludes that Plaintiff
has yet to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Providing no subsection, Plaintiff
asserts there is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc.  ¶ 3. Plaintiff King Boy
Baby Products, Ltd. identifies itself as a “corporation” based in China that has been “duly
organized” under the laws of China. Id. ¶ 1. But Plaintiff provides no analysis or factual support
to complete the “difficult task” of determining whether it, as “a foreign company,” should “be
treated as a corporation under § 1332.” Jet Midwest Int’l Co., Ltd v. Jet Midwest Grp., LLC, 932
F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 2019); accord Fellowes, Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Off.
Equip. Co. Ltd., 759 F.3d 787, 788 (7th Cir. 2014); see also, e.g., Beijing Auto. Indus. Imp. &
Exp. Corp. v. Indian Indus., Inc., 1:13-cv-01850-JMS, 2013 WL 12193672, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Dec.
10, 2013) (“[The plaintiff’s] allegation that it is ‘a Chinese corporation with its principal place of
business in Beijing, China’ does not inform the Court which American business form [the
plaintiff] most closely resembles.”).* The Court, therefore, will require Plaintiff to file a First
Amended Complaint that establishes this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
forthcoming First Amended Complaint, the Court will deny without prejudice as moot
Defendant’s motions regarding the original complaint.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than Monday, November 27, 2023, Plaintiff
shall file a First Amended Complaint, consistent with this Memorandum and Order, that
establishes this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike, Doc. , is
DENIED without prejudice as moot.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time, Doc.
, is DENIED without prejudice as moot.
Dated this 15th day of November 2023.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
If, for example, Plaintiff is more akin to a limited liability company, the Court would need factual
allegations establishing the citizenship of each of Plaintiff’s members. See GMAC Com. Credit LLC v.
Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004); see also Fellowes, Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui
Fellowes Off. Equip. Co. Ltd., 759 F.3d 787, 788, 790 (7th Cir. 2014) (parties agreeing Chinese company
had “‘members’ (like an LLC or partnership in the United States) rather than ‘shareholders’” and was
“closer to a limited liability company than to any other business structure in this nation”).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?