Sang v. City of New York

Opinion

fy emenk, ha TOT TTT TT" □□□□□□□ ere □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT pUsDCStXy SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK POCUMENS eran nnn DORE TRONICALLY FILBp GUI RONG SANG Dani □□□ pe □□ | PATE Fite, | /- 14> Plaintiff, ee -against- 19-cv-10557 (LAK) CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants Te me mm me em mw me ee eX

ORDER LEwIs A. KAPLAN, District Judge. 1, Among the defendants named in this action is the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. It is not a suable entity. Accordingly, the action is dismissed as against it. 2. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to allege: a 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). The citizenship of one or more corporations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). QO The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 □□□□ 195 (1990). O 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. Oo The timely removal of the action from state court. Absent the filing, on or before December 2, 2019, of an amended complaint adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the action will be dismissed as to the remaining defendants. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2019 l. Lewis A. an United Statés District Judge