Pena v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 4/3/2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : FREDDY PENA, : : Plaintiff, : 1:24-cv-02232-GHW : -v- : ORDER : MACY’S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, : : Defendant. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On March 27, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Defendant had failed to establish its citizenship for the purposes of determining whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Dkt. No. 5. On April 3, 2024, Defendant submitted a letter noting that “new information has become available” and that it believes “there is no longer diversity among the parties.” Dkt. No. 6. Defendant further stated, “We understand this case will need to be remanded back to the New York Supreme Court . . . .” Id. “Ifatany time before final judgmentitappears thatthe districtcourtlacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendants have “the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Abbo-Bardley v. City of Niagara Falls, 73 F.4th 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2023). Given Defendant’s representations above, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that removal was proper and that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the New York Supreme Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ‘The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, without delay. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2024 New York, New York GRE H. WOODS United States District Judge