Reynaldo v. Sudzina

S.D. New York

Reynaldo v. Sudzina

DecidedApril 12, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-02976

StatusUnknown

This text of Reynaldo v. Sudzina (Reynaldo v. Sudzina) 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

Reynaldo v. Sudzina, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K --------------------------------------------------------------X : ABREU FALETTE REYNALDO, : Plaintiff, : 21 Civ. 2976 (LGS) : -against- : ORDER : KEVIN SUDZINA, et al., : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on April 7, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. WHEREAS, the Notice of Removal failed to allege the time during which Plaintiff was a citizen of New York, Defendant Kevin Sudzina was a citizen of New Jersey and Defendant Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. was a citizen of Massachusetts. See Dkt. No. 1. WHEREAS, a District Court may sua sponte remand a case for a procedural defect within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Notice of Removal. Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2006). WHEREAS, a Notice of Removal should allege the citizenship of the parties both at the time of the commencement of the action, and at the time of the Notice of Removal. “The general rule is when, as in this case, diversity is the sole basis for asserting removal jurisdiction, diversity must exist both at the time the original action is filed in state court and at the time removal is sought to federal court.” Adrian Family Partners I, L.P. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 79 Fed. Appx. 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2003); see also United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994). It is hereby ORDERED that the matter is summarily remanded to state court. Defendants’ Notice of Removal is procedurally defective. Pursuant to section 1447(c), the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a certified copy of this Opinion and Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the case.

Dated: April 12, 2021 New York, New York LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K --------------------------------------------------------------X : ABREU FALETTE REYNALDO, : Plaintiff, : 21 Civ. 2976 (LGS) : -against- : ORDER : KEVIN SUDZINA, et al., : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on April 7, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. WHEREAS, the Notice of Removal failed to allege the time during which Plaintiff was a citizen of New York, Defendant Kevin Sudzina was a citizen of New Jersey and Defendant Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. was a citizen of Massachusetts. See Dkt. No. 1. WHEREAS, a District Court may sua sponte remand a case for a procedural defect within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Notice of Removal. Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2006). WHEREAS, a Notice of Removal should allege the citizenship of the parties both at the time of the commencement of the action, and at the time of the Notice of Removal. “The general rule is when, as in this case, diversity is the sole basis for asserting removal jurisdiction, diversity must exist both at the time the original action is filed in state court and at the time removal is sought to federal court.” Adrian Family Partners I, L.P. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 79 Fed. Appx. 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2003); see also United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994). It is hereby ORDERED that the matter is summarily remanded to state court. Defendants’ Notice of Removal is procedurally defective. Pursuant to section 1447(c), the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a certified copy of this Opinion and Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the case.

Dated: April 12, 2021 New York, New York LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reynaldo v. Sudzina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynaldo-v-sudzina-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack