Raynaud v. Mulligan Security, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-01782
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Raynaud v. Mulligan Security, Judge Rochon ordered plaintiffs to identify the LLC’s members’ citizenship or face dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs must provide additional allegations about Mulligan Security LLC’s ownership and citizenship; otherwise, the complaint may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Raynaud v. Mulligan Security, LLC, La’Rue Raynaud and Emmanuel “Tahon” Ramirez sued Mulligan Security LLC based on diversity of citizenship. They alleged that they are New York citizens and that Mulligan Security is a Delaware limited liability company.
The court explained that an LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of each of its members. Because the complaint did not identify the citizenship of Mulligan Security’s members and any entities in its ownership structure, it did not properly establish diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint by March 24, 2025, to allege that information. If they could not truthfully allege complete diversity, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice.
The detailed version
- Raynaud v. Mulligan Security, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01782
- Rochon
- Mar. 17, 2025
Background
La’Rue Raynaud and Emmanuel “Tahon” Ramirez brought this action against Mulligan Security LLC. The plaintiffs invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. They alleged that they are citizens of New York and that Mulligan Security LLC is a Delaware foreign limited liability company.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a limited liability company is a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens. A complaint relying on diversity jurisdiction therefore must identify the citizenship of each natural person who is an LLC member, as well as the relevant incorporation, principal-place-of-business, and ownership information for corporate or LLC members. The court found that the complaint did not provide that information for Mulligan Security LLC.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to amend the complaint by March 24, 2025, to allege the citizenship of each person or entity comprising Mulligan Security LLC. The court did not dismiss the complaint at this stage. It stated that, if the plaintiffs were unable to truthfully allege complete diversity by that date, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice to either party.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.