Sima v. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP

Background

Amanda Sima filed the action against Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP (NMRS) and Ashley Summer, Esq. She alleged that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the case—because the parties were citizens of different states.

The court explained that an LLP is treated as a citizen of every state where its partners are citizens. A complaint relying on diversity jurisdiction must therefore allege the citizenship of the LLP’s individual members and, for any corporate members, their places of incorporation and principal places of business.

Pleading Defect

Sima’s original complaint alleged that NMRS was an LLP headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, with 33 offices nationwide. It did not allege the citizenship of NMRS’s members. The court previously ordered Sima to file an amended complaint that adequately alleged federal jurisdiction.

Sima filed an amended complaint on June 6, 2024. It added that NMRS had a law office in New York and that Ashley Summer was a partner at that office, where he allegedly engaged in unlawful conduct on behalf of NMRS. The court held that these allegations still did not provide enough information to reasonably infer NMRS’s citizenship as an LLP. Without that information, the court could not determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Order

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Sima to file a second amended complaint by June 25, 2024. The new complaint must allege facts from which the court can reasonably infer that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. The order stated that the case will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Sima does not comply. The order did not decide the underlying claims.