Order | Filed: August 08, 2026
| Entered: August 08, 2026
Kerrigan v. Alcott HR Group LLC
Contract: Other | New York Eastern
Order(Other)
ORDER. The Court has reviewed the declaration filed at ECF No. 9 and finds that subject matter jurisdiction has not been established.
"Jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act requires a class action involving (1) 100 or more class members, (2) an aggregate amount in controversy of at least $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (3) minimal diversity, i.e., where at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, minimal diversity is met where:
(A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant;
(B) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or
(C) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state."
Taylor Jackson & Joseph Fontana, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated, v. Lendio, Inc., Brock Blake, & all other related entities & individuals, No. 2:26-CV-3811 (NJC) (LGD), 2026 WL 2268617, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)(C) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Generally, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. See, e.g., Bayerische Landes bank, New York Branch v. Aladdin Capital Management LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10) provides that an unincorporated association shall be deemed to be a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10); see also Kim v. Trulia, LLC, No. 19-CV-06733 (DLI)(RER), 2021 WL 8743946, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (internal citations omitted) ("Under CAFA, 'an unincorporated association [is] deemed to be a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized.' The Second Circuit has not provided guidance as to a limited liability company's citizenship for purposes of CAFA jurisdiction.... Two Circuit Courts have held that an LLC's citizenship in a CAFA action is determined by its state of organization and principal place of business.... The Court adopts the reasoning of the Tenth and Fourth Circuits and finds that Defendant is an unincorporated association under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10).")
Here, counsel for Plaintiff avers that "[a]ccording to publicly available records, Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Farmingdale, New York.... Therefore, under the CAFA statute, Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and New York." (ECF No. 9 at 3.) Moreover, the Complaint states that, "[t]his Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because (1) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, (2) the action is a class action, (3) numerous Class Members are citizens of a different state that is diverse from Defendant, and (4) there are more than 100 Class Members." (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Thus, Plaintiff argues that minimal diversity has been pled as "at least one member of the putative class is a citizen of a state that is diverse from the Defendant." (ECF No. 9 at 3.) It is well known though, that "a complaint that alleges that the plaintiff and defendant are merely residents of different states has failed adequately to allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction." RainMakers Partners LLC v. NewSpring Cap., LLC, No. 23-899, 2024 WL 1846321, at *2 n.1 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2024).
However, at this stage and because "citizenship of parties is determined at the time of filing," the only known member of the class currently is Plaintiff, a New York citizen. See Taylor Jackson & Joseph Fontana, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated, 2026 WL 2268617, at *3 (remanding case to state court for failure to meet complete diversity). As such, Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of New York and complete diversity is not met. Therefore, jurisdiction is not satisfied. Accordingly, Plaintiff is afforded one last opportunity to establish that diversity jurisdiction is met and shall file a further declaration on or before August 14, 2026.
So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 8/8/2026. (JAF)