Sow v. William et al

Filing 8

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before March 10, 2025, Sow shall amend the Complaint to allege the citizenship of each constituent person or entity comprising Loomis Armored US LLC and properly alleging the citizenship of both d efendants. If, by that date, Sow is unable to amend the Complaint to truthfully allege complete diversity of citizenship, then the Complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice to either party. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 3/10/2025.) (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 3/5/2025) (sgz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
Souleymane Sow,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
Bryant William and Loomis Armored US LLC,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

25-CV-1741 (AS)
ORDER

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge:
Souleymane Sow brings this action against Bryant William and Loomis Armored US LLC,
invoking the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
It is well established that a limited liability company (“LLC”) is deemed to be a citizen of
each state of which its members are citizens. See, e.g., Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. L.P.,
213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Altissima Ltd. v. One Niagara LLC, No. 08-CV756S(M), 2010 WL 3504798, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2010) (noting that every other Court of
Appeals to have considered LLC citizenship has held that an LLC has the citizenship of all of its
members). Thus, a complaint premised upon diversity of citizenship must allege the citizenship
of natural persons who are members of an LLC and the place of incorporation and principal place
of business of any corporate entities that are members of the LLC (including the citizenship of any
members of the LLC that are themselves LLCs). See Handelsman, 213 F.3d at 51-52; see also,
e.g., In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivatives, and ERISA Litig., 757 F. Supp. 2d 260, 334 n.17
(S.D.N.Y. 2010). The current complaint does not do so.
Furthermore, Sow only alleges William’s state of residence, not state of citizenship. This
is not enough. For the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, “a statement of the parties’ residence is
insufficient to establish their citizenship.” Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital,
Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996); see also, e.g., Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir.
1998) (“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.”);
Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A]llegations of residency
alone cannot establish citizenship . . . .”).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before March 10, 2025, Sow shall amend
the Complaint to allege the citizenship of each constituent person or entity comprising Loomis
Armored US LLC and properly alleging the citizenship of both defendants. If, by that date, Sow
is unable to amend the Complaint to truthfully allege complete diversity of citizenship, then the

Complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice to either
party.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2025
New York, New York

__________________________________
ARUN SUBRAMANIAN
United States District Judge

2