Vargas v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc.

S.D. New York

Vargas v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 22, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-08646·Unknown

Opinion

|| USDC SDNY ; DOCUMENT □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | ELECTRONICALLY FIL} □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. □□ □□ ee ee ee ee ee ee HK DOC #_ ee □ MIKE VARGAS, JATE FILED: { 0 bh 2 24 □ 1s _———————oSoO Plaintiff,

-against- 2 I-cv-8646 (LAK) FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., et al, Defendants. ttt tr eee HK eee HK

ORDER

Lewis A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1332. The complaint and notice of removal fail adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, they fail adequately to allege: o/ The citizenship of one or more natural persons. See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Assn v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp.v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996), Oo The citizenship of one or more corporations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). O The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 195 (1990). oY The citizenship of one or more limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. Bedford Village Green Assocs. £.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 it t | , of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the action will be remanded, SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 20221 by Lewis A. aplan United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

|| USDC SDNY ; DOCUMENT □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | ELECTRONICALLY FIL} □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. □□ □□ ee ee ee ee ee ee HK DOC #_ ee □ MIKE VARGAS, JATE FILED: { 0 bh 2 24 □ 1s _———————oSoO Plaintiff,

-against- 2 I-cv-8646 (LAK) FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., et al, Defendants. ttt tr eee HK eee HK

ORDER

Lewis A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1332. The complaint and notice of removal fail adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, they fail adequately to allege: o/ The citizenship of one or more natural persons. See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Assn v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp.v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996), Oo The citizenship of one or more corporations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). O The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 195 (1990). oY The citizenship of one or more limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. Bedford Village Green Assocs. £.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 it t | , of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the action will be remanded, SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 20221 by Lewis A. aplan United States District Judge

Vargas v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Vargas v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc. (Vargas v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related