Gallina v. Target Corporation

S.D. New York

Gallina v. Target Corporation

DecidedJune 10, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-04658

StatusUnknown

This text of Gallina v. Target Corporation (Gallina v. Target Corporation) 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

Gallina v. Target Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

{USDC SDNY \ | DOCUMENT Ns ONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \ ELECTRO! SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: are AMY GALLINA, | DATE | ———eeere Plaintiff,

-against- 25-cv-4658 (LAK)

TARGET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. eee ee eee ee we ee ee ee ee we eee ee ee ee eee eee ee HK

ORDER

LEwIs A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. The notice of removal fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to a The citizenship of one or more natural persons. See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Ass’n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp.y. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996). O The citizenship of one or more corporations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Oo The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. J 195 (1990). The exact-nature-ane citizenship of one or more alleged limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. Bedford Village Green Assocs. L.P., 213 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 2000). Absent the filing, on or before June 16, 20250f an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, this action will be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 9, 2025 f Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge

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

{USDC SDNY \ | DOCUMENT Ns ONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \ ELECTRO! SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: are AMY GALLINA, | DATE | ———eeere Plaintiff,

-against- 25-cv-4658 (LAK)

TARGET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. eee ee eee ee we ee ee ee ee we eee ee ee ee eee eee ee HK

ORDER

LEwIs A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. The notice of removal fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to a The citizenship of one or more natural persons. See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Ass’n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp.y. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996). O The citizenship of one or more corporations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Oo The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. J 195 (1990). The exact-nature-ane citizenship of one or more alleged limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. Bedford Village Green Assocs. L.P., 213 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 2000). Absent the filing, on or before June 16, 20250f an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, this action will be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 9, 2025 f Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gallina v. Target Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallina-v-target-corporation-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack