Aviv v. Brainard et al
Filing
139
OPINION AND ORDER: The Clerk is directed to remand this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, from which it was removed. The Court will retain jurisdiction only over the following: proceedings related to the Court 9;s Orders to Show Cause entered July 31, 2018 (Doc 59) and August 22, 2018 (Doc 73), and the Orders of Civil Contempt entered August 30, 2018 (Doc 87) and October 11, 2018 (Doc 125). (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 11/1/2018) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
ROBIN AVIV,
Plaintiff,
-against-
18-cv-5088 (PKC)
OPINION AND
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER BRAINARD, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------x
CASTEL, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff has dropped the federal claims that formed the basis for removal from
state court but state law claims remain. The question presented is whether, at the time the state
court action commenced and at the time of removal, there was subject matter jurisdiction on the
basis of diversity of citizenship, even though not pled. The Court concludes that there was not
and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that will be remanded
to state court. The Court will retain ancillary jurisdiction over certain contempt-related
proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action was commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County, on or about May 10, 2018 and assigned Index No. 652287/2018. An application
for a temporary restraining order was granted by Hon. David B. Cohn, J.S.C. (Doc 9-1.)
Defendants Christopher Brainard, Donald Brainard, Paul Bergman, LMB
Holdings LLC, Four Seasons Tower LLC, CJB Capital LLC (Wyoming), CJB Capital LLC
(Delaware), and CB Funding LLC removed the action from state court to this Court by Notice of
Removal filed June 7, 2018.
The basis for removal was that the action was within the original jurisdiction of
this Court because plaintiff asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. Because a federal question was
presented, defendants asserted that there was subject matter jurisdiction “without regard to the
citizenship or residence of the parties.” (Notice of Removal; Doc 1 at ¶ 2.) They asserted that
the state law claims were within the supplemental jurisdiction of the Court. (Id. at ¶ 3.)
During the pendency of the action in this Court, civil contempt proceedings were
brought against parties and non-parties. (Docs 59, 73.) These resulted in certain contempt
findings. (Doc 87, 125.)
On September 21, 2018, plaintiff amended her complaint dropping all federal
claims in the action. Plaintiff does not allege that there is complete diversity between her and all
defendants. Following the amendment, this Court Ordered as follows: “Within seven days of
this Order, the parties shall show cause in writing why the Court should retain supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims. In addition, within seven days of this Order, the parties
shall show cause in writing why the Court should not retain jurisdiction over the contempt
proceedings.” (Order of Sept. 27, 2018; Doc 108.)
-2-
A. There Is No Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the Basis of Diversity of Citizenship.
Robin Aviv, the alleged holder of a judgment against Christopher Brainard, seeks
remand of her state law claims for fraudulent conveyance and civil conspiracy (second and third
causes of action) but urges the Court to retain jurisdiction of the contempt proceedings and sever
and retain jurisdiction of the alter ego claims (first cause of action). (Doc 121.)
The attorneys for Christopher Brainard, LMB Holdings LLC, Four Seasons
Tower LLC, CJB Capital LLC (a Wyoming limited liability company), and CB Funding LLC
(the “CB Defendants”), who have moved to withdraw, advised as follows: “Because my firm
continues to lack authority to act on behalf of the CB Defendants, we are unable to respond on
behalf of our former clients.” (Doc 113.) 1 No other response was received from Christopher
Brainard.
Donald Brainard, who is separately represented, is the father of Christopher
Brainard. Donald has filed a declaration that his son, Christopher, “lived” in New York until
August 2014, “lived” at three different “locations” in Florida until late 2017, and since then has
“mov[ed]” to England. (Donald Brainard Decl.; Doc 119 at ¶ 6-8.) He does not claim to know
his son’s present whereabouts but helpfully supplies his “last known address” in England. (Id. at
¶ 8.) Christopher has been adjudicated to be in contempt of this Court and his conduct lies at the
heart of the state law claims.
Donald’s hearsay declaration concerning his son’s residences does not
demonstrate the existence of diversity jurisdiction. He places Christopher in New York prior to
August 2014 and then has him residing at three locations in Florida. That his present residence is
in England compounds the jurisdictional problem. A United States citizen domiciled in a foreign
1
The opposed motion to withdraw remains pending. (Doc 43.)
-3-
country is a “stateless” person for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction because he is not a citizen
of any state. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). Thus, if
Christopher Brainard is a United States citizen residing in England with the intention to remain
for an indefinite period of time, he would be neither an alien nor a citizen of a state and there
would not be complete diversity of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id.
The Court’s Order to Show Cause required the parties to demonstrate why the
Court ought to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. In response, Donald
Brainard has chosen to argue that the Court has original jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The proponent of subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving the facts supporting a
claim of complete diversity of citizenship by a preponderance of the competent evidence.
Raymond Loubier Irrevocable Tr. v. Loubier, 858 F.3d 719, 725 (2d Cir. 2017). The proponent
must demonstrate that there was jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship both at the
time of commencement of the state court action and also at the time of removal. Chapman v.
Crane Co., 694 F. App'x 825, 828 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (citing 14B Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3723 (4th ed. 2013) and United Food
& Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square,
Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994)).
The failure to demonstrate that Christopher’s citizenship is diverse also calls into
doubt the citizenship of the defendant limited liability companies of which he is alleged to be a
member. See Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir.
2000) (citing Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998)); Strother v. Harte, 171
F. Supp. 2d 203, 205 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability
company has the citizenship of each of its members.”). Defendant LMB Holdings LLC is
-4-
alleged to be 100% owned by Christopher; defendant CJB Capital LLC (Wyoming) is also
alleged to have ownership that may include Christopher and others. (Doc 105 at ¶ 58-59, 62.)
There is no dispute that the jurisdictional monetary threshold is exceeded, but no
party has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there was complete diversity of
citizenship at the time of commencement of the action and at the time of removal to this Court.
The Court concludes that it does not have an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction
over the remaining state claims based upon diversity of citizenship.
B. The Court Declines to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over the State Law Claims.
The Court, however, may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims
because, at the time of removal, it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action by reason of the
now abandoned federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see Parker v. Della Rocco, 252 F.3d 663,
666 (2d Cir. 2001). Section 1367(c)(3) provides that the district court “may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”
Section 1367(c)(3) is couched in permissive terms, but the Second Circuit has
made clear that the Court's discretion “is not boundless.” Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316
F.3d 299, 305 (2d Cir. 2003). “In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental
state-law claims, district courts should balance the values of judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity—the ‘Cohill factors.’” Klein & Co. Futures v. Bd. of Trade of Citv of New
York, 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,
350 (1988)). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the
balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
-5-
remaining state-law claims.” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350 n. 7; see Catzin v. Thank You & Good
Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2018).
Here, the case is in its early stages and little has transpired on the merits beyond
the temporary restraining order in state court and the preliminary injunction and contempt
proceedings in this Court. Thus, this Court will achieve no judicial economy by retaining the
claims. The claims are common law state claims in which there is little federal interest. In terms
of convenience and fairness, this Court and Supreme Court, New York County are equally
convenient to the parties and both capable of fairly adjudicating the claims.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The action will be remanded to state court.
C. The Court Will Retain Jurisdiction over the Existing Contempt-Related Proceedings.
There remains the matter of the civil contempt proceedings, which were brought
before this Court. Under the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, a federal court may maintain
jurisdiction over a matter that has otherwise ceased to be within its jurisdiction. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375, 379-80 (1994), concludes that the
court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction “to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to
manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees . . . .” Cf. Covanta
Onondaga Ltd. v. Onondaga Cty. Res. Recovery Agency, 318 F.3d 392, 396 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[A]
court that has concluded its adjudication of the merits of a case within its jurisdiction by entering
a final judgment retains authority to take action with respect to some collateral matters related to
the case, such as attorney’s fees and costs, . . . and sanctions, . . . In addition, a court that enters a
judgment with continuing effect retains some authority to enforce its judgment . . . .”).
-6-
Accordingly, the Court will exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the contempt-related matters
enumerated in the concluding paragraph.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk is directed to remand this action to the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, from which it was removed. The Court will retain jurisdiction
only over the following: proceedings related to the Court’s Orders to Show Cause entered July
31, 2018 (Doc 59) and August 22, 2018 (Doc 73), and the Orders of Civil Contempt entered
August 30, 2018 (Doc 87) and October 11, 2018 (Doc 125).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
November 1, 2018
-7-
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?