Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc.

S.D. New York

Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc.

DecidedOctober 7, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-05978

StatusUnknown

This text of Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc. (Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIELLE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, . 1:25-cv-05978 (ALC) -against- GRAPHITE SOLUTIONS INC., ORDER Defendant.

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: On September 22, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by October 6, 2025 as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to properly plead subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 6; Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000) (“A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.”), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1117 (2020). Such showing was not made. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Veras v. Sirawan Transportation, Inc., 501 F. Supp. 3d 142, 143 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (dismissing case for failure to respond to Order to Show Cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail Plaintiff this Order and enter judgment in this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2025 (Lue New York, New York [Avda ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIELLE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, . 1:25-cv-05978 (ALC) -against- GRAPHITE SOLUTIONS INC., ORDER Defendant.

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: On September 22, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by October 6, 2025 as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to properly plead subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 6; Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000) (“A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.”), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1117 (2020). Such showing was not made. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Veras v. Sirawan Transportation, Inc., 501 F. Supp. 3d 142, 143 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (dismissing case for failure to respond to Order to Show Cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail Plaintiff this Order and enter judgment in this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2025 (Lue New York, New York [Avda ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danielle-johnson-v-graphite-solutions-inc-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack