Parker v. Alexander

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [espcspyy SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eet Ras. 5 eas « aka od ae ee eee se E ICALI ANGELICA PARKER, | pate ritep: [py of # □ Plaintiff,

-against- 24-cv-4813 (LAK) TAL ALEXANDER, et al., Defendants ewe we ewe ee eee ee eee HK

ORDER

LEwIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The notice of removal fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction and compliance with the removal statute because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to allege: of The citizenship of one or more natural a See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Ass’n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp.v. 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). O The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 195 (1990). O The exact nature and 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). i Less than all defendants join in the removal. Absent the filing, on or before July 7, 2024 of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction and compliance with the removal statute, this action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or lack of compliance. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2024 Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge