Padin v. Burke

S.D. New York

Padin v. Burke

DecidedMay 2, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-03164

StatusUnknown

This text of Padin v. Burke (Padin v. Burke) 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

Padin v. Burke, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAIRO PADIN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-03164 (JLR) -against- ORDER EATON BURKE, 12NPARK INC., and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. Defendant(s). JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: On May 1, 2025, Defendants Eaton Burke, 12NPark, Inc. and Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) filed a corrected notice of removal invoking the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Dkt. 7. Although Defendants state that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties in this case because “Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey, Defendant Burke is domiciled in New York and Defendants, 12NPARK and FEDEX are corporations with headquarters in New York and Tennessee,” Defendants merely allege Plaintiff’s state of residence, not Plaintiff’s state of citizenship. Id. ¶ 6. The Notice of Removal cites to the Complaint, which likewise only states that “[a]t all times herein after mentioned, Plaintiff, Jairo Padin, was, and is, a resident of the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.” Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 1. This is not enough. See, e.g., Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998) (“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.”); Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A[llegations of residency alone cannot establish citizenship . . . .”). Moreover, “[t]he party seeking to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bears the burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete.” Advani Enters., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1998) (first citing McNutt v. Gen Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); and then citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806)). Accordingly, no later than May 9, 2025, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal properly establishing the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, Defendants do not file an amended notice of removal establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court will remand the case to state court. Dated: May 2, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

hecacfer Kechope _ NNIPER L. ROCHON 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 JAIRO PADIN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-03164 (JLR) -against- ORDER EATON BURKE, 12NPARK INC., and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. Defendant(s). JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: On May 1, 2025, Defendants Eaton Burke, 12NPark, Inc. and Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) filed a corrected notice of removal invoking the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Dkt. 7. Although Defendants state that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties in this case because “Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey, Defendant Burke is domiciled in New York and Defendants, 12NPARK and FEDEX are corporations with headquarters in New York and Tennessee,” Defendants merely allege Plaintiff’s state of residence, not Plaintiff’s state of citizenship. Id. ¶ 6. The Notice of Removal cites to the Complaint, which likewise only states that “[a]t all times herein after mentioned, Plaintiff, Jairo Padin, was, and is, a resident of the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey.” Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 1. This is not enough. See, e.g., Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998) (“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.”); Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A[llegations of residency alone cannot establish citizenship . . . .”). Moreover, “[t]he party seeking to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bears the burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete.” Advani Enters., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1998) (first citing McNutt v. Gen Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); and then citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806)). Accordingly, no later than May 9, 2025, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal properly establishing the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, Defendants do not file an amended notice of removal establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court will remand the case to state court. Dated: May 2, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

hecacfer Kechope _ NNIPER L. ROCHON United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Padin v. Burke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padin-v-burke-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack