Franko v. Lewnowski

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: August 24, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-06115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT nner X ELECTRONICALLY FILED . DOC □□ MICHAEL FRANKO, DATE FILED: _ 8/24/2021 Plaintiff, : : 21-cv-6115 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER OSKAR LEWNOWSKT et al., : Defendants. :

□□□ KX VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On July 16, 2021, Defendants filed a notice of removal from the New York Supreme Court, New York County, on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter arguing that Defendants’ “Notice of Removal is defective because it does not plead . . . defendants’ citizenship,” and instead states only that Defendants are not New Jersey citizens. (Doc. 8, at 1.) Plaintiffs letter was not explicitly a motion for remand, but rather Plaintiff sought to inform me about the issue and see if I needed further clarity on subject- matter jurisdiction in this case. (See id. at 2.) On August 23, 2021, Defendants submitted a filing in response to Plaintiff's letter identifying the citizenship of all three Defendants. (Doc. 9.) Based on the representations that Plaintiff made in this filing, I am satisfied that Plaintiff has adequately clarified the citizenship of all Defendants and that the parties are completely diverse. See Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 615 (2d Cir. 2019) (“For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a partnership takes the citizenship of all of its partners.”); Caren v. Collins, 689 F. App’x 75, 76 (2d Cir. 2017) (similar).

That said, when subject-matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity jurisdiction, “complete diversity of all parties is an absolute, bright-line prerequisite to federal subject matter Jurisdiction,” Pa. Pub. Sch. Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2019), meaning that I “may at any time in the course of litigation consider whether such [diversity] jurisdiction exists,” Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006). Indeed, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Moving forward, either party should inform me if they believe that complete diversity between the parties in this matter does not exist. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that I decline to remand this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) or otherwise, at this time. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 24, 2021 , New York, New York Hy f |

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge