Kai Cenat’s Company Faces Court Questions Over Two LLCs In Audition Suit

Kai Cenat‘s New York company has to explain how two businesses sharing his name fit into a federal lawsuit.

A Manhattan judge wants that answer in writing as a dispute tied to Streamer University auditions moves through court.

The question isn’t whether the streamer owes anybody money, but which company belongs in the case and why.

In a November 5 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger gave the New York company’s lawyer until November 12 to explain both entities’ connections to the events alleged.

That means addressing Kai Cenat LLC in New York and Kai Cenat LLC in Georgia separately. The lawyer also has to clarify whether the same legal team represents the Georgia business, rather than leaving that relationship unclear on the record.

Lehrburger also put a limit on plaintiff Caleb Gottfried’s repeated revisions: “Having already filed his Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall not file any further amended complaints without obtaining leave of court.”

Any further rewrite now needs the judge’s permission before it can be filed.

Gottfried brought the case against Night Media and Kai Cenat LLC in June, and the New York company and Night Media filed answers in August.

His lawsuit concerns alleged crowd-safety problems at a Streamer University event, not the program’s 2025 closing ceremony that featured a surprise message from Drake.

The Georgia company’s role has been working its way through the paperwork for weeks.

On September 25, Lehrburger directed the court clerk to prepare service documents for that entity through the U.S. Marshals Service, with Gottfried responsible for making sure service happened within 90 days after the summons was issued.

An October 21 order then allowed Gottfried to submit his fourth amended complaint after the defendants didn’t respond to that request.

Lehrburger also declined his request for a free lawyer at that stage, while allowing him to ask again later as the case develops.

That request covered help with depositions and trial, and the judge considered it premature before the defendants answered or any motions to dismiss were resolved.

The November 5 order sets those next steps without deciding whether either company is liable.