Tucker v. International Proactive Security, Inc.

S.D. New York

Tucker v. International Proactive Security, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 6, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-02946

StatusUnknown

This text of Tucker v. International Proactive Security, Inc. (Tucker v. International Proactive Security, Inc.) 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

Tucker v. International Proactive Security, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHAVONNE TUCKER, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23-CV-02946 (AS) -V- : : ORDER INTERNATIONAL PROACTIVE SECURITY, INC., : Defendant. :

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge: On April 7, 2023, defendant removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See ECF No. 3, 4] 7. But defendant merely alleges the plaintiffs’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. /d. 48. This is not enough. For the purpose of diversity Jurisdiction, “a statement of the parties’ residence 1s insufficient to establish their citizenship.” Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996); see also, e.g., Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998) (“For purposes of diversity Jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.”); Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A[llegations of residency alone cannot establish citizenship wee) Accordingly, no later than Friday, September 8, 2023, defendant shall file an amended notice of removal properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, defendant does not file an amended notice of removal establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party. If plaintiffs disagree with the citizenship allegations in the amended notice of removal, they should file a letter, not to exceed 2 pages, by Tuesday, September 12, 2023. In addition, plaintiffs shall file a letter by Friday, September 8, 2023, explaining why they did not request to consolidate the state actions until February 2023. The letter should also explain whether plaintiffs seek relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to the accident. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The letter should not exceed 2 pages. Defendant shall file any response, not to exceed 2 pages, by Tuesday, September 12, 2023. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2023 J —— New York, New York ARUN SUBRAMANIAN 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

SHAVONNE TUCKER, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23-CV-02946 (AS) -V- : : ORDER INTERNATIONAL PROACTIVE SECURITY, INC., : Defendant. :

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge: On April 7, 2023, defendant removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See ECF No. 3, 4] 7. But defendant merely alleges the plaintiffs’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. /d. 48. This is not enough. For the purpose of diversity Jurisdiction, “a statement of the parties’ residence 1s insufficient to establish their citizenship.” Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996); see also, e.g., Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998) (“For purposes of diversity Jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.”); Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A[llegations of residency alone cannot establish citizenship wee) Accordingly, no later than Friday, September 8, 2023, defendant shall file an amended notice of removal properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, defendant does not file an amended notice of removal establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party. If plaintiffs disagree with the citizenship allegations in the amended notice of removal, they should file a letter, not to exceed 2 pages, by Tuesday, September 12, 2023. In addition, plaintiffs shall file a letter by Friday, September 8, 2023, explaining why they did not request to consolidate the state actions until February 2023. The letter should also explain whether plaintiffs seek relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to the accident. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The letter should not exceed 2 pages. Defendant shall file any response, not to exceed 2 pages, by Tuesday, September 12, 2023. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2023 J —— New York, New York ARUN SUBRAMANIAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tucker v. International Proactive Security, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-international-proactive-security-inc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack