Thomas v. Pizarro

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK esig => wr ee en eee eee x ecemeennme - TERENCE THOMAS, etc., pot Ya>| Plaintiff, -against- 23-cv-10159 (LAK) TONY D. PIZARRO, let al., Defendants we eee ee ee ee meet ee er me et ee er ee eer ee eH HX

ORDER LEwIs A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. To the extent that jurisdiction is premised on the latter statute, it fails adequately to allege: 0 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). if he citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 S. 195 (1990). of he citizenship of one or more limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. edford Village Green Assocs. L.P., 213 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 2000). O he nature and citizenship of one or more business entities. O he timely removal of the action from state court. Absent the filing, on or before December 2, 2023, of an amended complaint adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court will not rely on that statute as a basis of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 21, 2023 □ Lewis XX. la United States District Judge