Indiana Cruz Bello v. Aldo U.S. Inc. and 29 West 34 Owner LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-07466
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Indiana Cruz Bello v. Aldo U.S. Inc., Judge Engelmayer allowed an amended complaint to clarify diversity jurisdiction.
Indiana Cruz Bello must file an amended complaint addressing the defendants’ entity types and citizenship information. Aldo U.S. Inc. and 29 West 34 Owner LLC are affected because their members’ or partners’ citizenship may determine whether the federal court has jurisdiction.
What happened
In Indiana Cruz Bello v. Aldo U.S. Inc. and 29 West 34 Owner LLC, the plaintiff relied on the parties’ citizenship as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. The complaint identified the defendants as limited liability entities but did not state the citizenship of their members or partners.
The court ordered the plaintiff to clarify whether each defendant is a limited liability company or limited liability partnership and to provide the citizenship information required for that type of entity. The court warned that if the plaintiff could not truthfully allege complete diversity, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint by September 17, 2025. The order did not dismiss the complaint.
The detailed version
- Indiana Cruz Bello v. Aldo U.S. Inc. and 29 West 34 Owner LLC · No. 1:25-cv-07466
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 11, 2025
Background
On September 9, 2025, Indiana Cruz Bello filed the complaint. The complaint asserted diversity of citizenship as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. It stated that Aldo U.S. Inc. and 29 West 34 Owner LLC were both limited liability corporations and limited liability partnerships, and alleged that the defendants were incorporated in Delaware.
Jurisdictional Problem
The court explained that a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. A limited liability partnership has the citizenship of each of its general and limited partners. Because the complaint did not identify the citizenship of the defendants’ members or partners, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed.
The court required an amended complaint to state clearly whether each defendant is an LLC or LLP. For any LLC, the amended complaint must allege the citizenship of natural-person partners and, for corporate partners, each entity’s place of incorporation and principal place of business. For any LLP, it must allege the citizenship of all members, including general and limited partners.
Ruling
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the court granted Indiana Cruz Bello leave to amend the complaint by September 17, 2025. The court stated that if the plaintiff could not truthfully amend the complaint to allege complete diversity, the complaint would be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order itself did not dismiss the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.