Uribe Vargas v. Cox

Opinion

fime ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eee. OUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee po ere nti stern shee a eeec => Ld ener = ee SRR boc / A) □□ JUAN MIGUEL URIBE VARGAS, DATE da □□

Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-7215 (LAK) EVON LAVELLE COX, Defendant. . ttt rrr mm em em ee ee eee □□ ee ee ewe eB ee ee eH HX

ORDER (Corrected) EWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The notice of removal fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to allege: of 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 U.S. 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. O The timely removal of the action from state court. Absent the filing, on or before January 20, 2024 of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, this action will be remanded to the state court. SO ORDERED. ated: January 10, 2024 hh, Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge