Pyne v. CKR Law LLP

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : KEITH E. PYNE and ENRICO DESIATA, : : Plaintiffs, : : 24 Civ. 2912 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER CKR LAW LLP and JEFFREY RINDE, : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on April 17, 2024. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiffs invoked the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because “Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of Arizona and Panama, respectively, and the amount in controversy is not less than [$750,000].” Id. ¶ 5.1 The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Keith E. Pyne is a citizen of Arizona, Plaintiff Enrico Desiata is a citizen of Italy and a permanent resident of Panama, and Defendant Jeffrey Rinde is a citizen of New York. Id. ¶¶ 1-3. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant CKR Law LLP (“CKR”) “is a limited liability partnership duly authorized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal office located [in] . . . New York.” Id. ¶ 4. “[F]or a[] [limited liability partnership (‘LLP’)], citizenship depends on the citizenship of its partners: an LLP is treated as a citizen of every state of which its partners are citizens.” Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP v. Cyrulnik, 582 F. Supp. 3d 180, 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). Accordingly, It is not entirely apparent why Plaintiffs used “respectively” in this paragraph of the Complaint, as this description only appears to describe Plaintiffs’ own citizenships. Nor is it clear why Plaintiffs allege, as a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, that the amount-in-controversy is not less than $750,000, as the threshold for diversity jurisdiction is $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint alleging the citizenship of each of CKR’s partners by May 16, 2024. If Plaintiffs fail to amend the Complaint by that date or otherwise properly establish this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court may dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2024 Vb 72 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge