Key Legal Funding LLC v. Chase
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-04610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Key Legal Funding LLC v. Chase, Judge Torres ordered an amended complaint identifying the companies’ members’ citizenship and warned that missing complete diversity could lead to dismissal.
Key Legal Funding LLC must amend its complaint to provide the required citizenship information; Dean Chase and Plaintiff Support Funding, LLC are affected because the court may dismiss the complaint if complete diversity is not truthfully established.
What happened
In Key Legal Funding LLC v. Chase, Key Legal Funding LLC sued Dean Chase and Plaintiff Support Funding, LLC, claiming that federal jurisdiction existed because the parties were citizens of different states. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
The court explained that a limited liability company’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of each member. The plaintiff must identify the citizenship of every individual or entity that makes up both limited liability companies, including corporate members’ states of incorporation and principal places of business.
The court ordered Key Legal Funding LLC to amend its complaint by June 20, 2023. Judge Analisa Torres warned that if the plaintiff did not truthfully allege complete diversity, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Key Legal Funding LLC v. Chase · No. 1:23-cv-04610
- Analisa Torres
- June 6, 2023
Background
Key Legal Funding LLC brought an action against Dean Chase and Plaintiff Support Funding, LLC. The plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states. The order does not state what underlying claims the plaintiff asserted.
Jurisdictional Defect
The court noted that Key Legal Funding LLC and Plaintiff Support Funding, LLC appeared to be limited liability companies. For diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. The complaint therefore had to identify the citizenship of every individual member and, for any corporate member, its state of incorporation and principal place of business.
Order and Effect
The court ordered the plaintiff to amend its pleading by June 20, 2023, to allege the citizenship of each constituent person or entity. The court stated that if the plaintiff failed to amend by that date and truthfully allege complete diversity, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not decide the underlying claims or dismiss the complaint at that time.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.