Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza

S.D. New York

Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza

DecidedNovember 2, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-09131

StatusUnknown

This text of Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza (Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza) 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

Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TUT TT Ts sme me me ee eee ee ee eX ELIEZER RIVERA, Plaintiff, -against- 20-cv-9131 (LAK) (LAK) YANIER GONZALEZ-ESPONIZA, et ano.,

Defendant(s) TTS Te mm ee ee ee eee HX

ORDER LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint or notice of removal fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to allege: Ww 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.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). Oo The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 US. 195 (1990). of The citizenship of one or more limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. Bedford Village Green Assocs. L.P., 213 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 2000). O The nature and citizenship of one or more business entities. O The timely removal of the action from state court. Absent the filing, on or before November 10, 2020, of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the action will be dismissed (or remanded). SO ORDERED. Dated: November 2, 2020 | Lewis A“Kaplan 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 TUT TT Ts sme me me ee eee ee ee eX ELIEZER RIVERA, Plaintiff, -against- 20-cv-9131 (LAK) (LAK) YANIER GONZALEZ-ESPONIZA, et ano.,

Defendant(s) TTS Te mm ee ee ee eee HX

ORDER LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint or notice of removal fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to allege: Ww 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.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). Oo The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 US. 195 (1990). of The citizenship of one or more limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. Bedford Village Green Assocs. L.P., 213 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 2000). O The nature and citizenship of one or more business entities. O The timely removal of the action from state court. Absent the filing, on or before November 10, 2020, of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the action will be dismissed (or remanded). SO ORDERED. Dated: November 2, 2020 | Lewis A“Kaplan United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-gonzalez-espinoza-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack