ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge.
On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff Fast Track Investment Company, LLC, filed this case alleging five causes of action against Defendants Theresa and Stephen White, Lawrence Moy, Norman G. Fernandez, and Moy & Fernandez Law Group, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. (See Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter "Compl."].) Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of the parties. (Id. ¶¶ 1-4.)
A district court has original "diversity" subject matterV jurisdiction over all "civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and cost," and the action is "between citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The district court has jurisdiction only if there is "complete diversity" between the parties, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each defendant. See id.; Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. 267) (1806)).
The Complaint seems to rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), which states that, "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." (See Compl. ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff is not a corporation, but rather is a limited liability company. (Id.) Citizenship of a limited liability company is determined not by incorporation and by principal place of business, but rather by the citizenship of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). By failing to properly plead its citizenship, Plaintiff has failed to plead diversity jurisdiction. The Court sua sponte