Lento v. Sayegh
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-03359
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lento v. Sayegh, Judge Torres ordered plaintiffs to clarify citizenship allegations by May 8, 2025, or explain why amendment is unnecessary.
The plaintiffs, Joseph D. Lento and Lento Law Firm, P.C., must amend their complaint or explain why amendment is unnecessary by May 8, 2025. The plaintiffs’ claims may be dismissed if complete diversity is not timely alleged.
What happened
In Lento v. Sayegh, Joseph D. Lento and Lento Law Firm, P.C. sued Peter Sayegh and HRBA Law LLC, relying on diversity jurisdiction, which allows certain disputes involving citizens of different states in federal court. The court found that the complaint did not properly allege the parties’ citizenship for that purpose.
The court ordered the plaintiffs by May 8, 2025, either to amend the complaint to properly allege the citizenship of all parties or to file a letter explaining why they do not need to do so. The court warned that if the plaintiffs do not timely establish complete diversity, their claims may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Analisa Torres issued this order on April 24, 2025. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Lento v. Sayegh · No. 1:25-cv-03359
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 24, 2025
Background
Joseph D. Lento and Lento Law Firm, P.C. sued Peter Sayegh and HRBA Law LLC, also known as HR & Business Associates, LLC. The plaintiffs invoked diversity subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a basis for federal jurisdiction that generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between opposing parties.
Citizenship Allegations
The court explained that if Lento Law Firm, P.C. is a professional corporation, the complaint must identify its state of incorporation and principal place of business. The court also explained that if HRBA Law LLC is a limited liability company, the complaint must identify the citizenship of each member, including the required information for any corporate members.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs, by May 8, 2025, to amend the complaint to properly allege the citizenship of the parties or file a letter explaining why they need not do so. The court stated that if the plaintiffs fail to timely allege complete diversity, the plaintiffs’ claims may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.