Marr v. West Putnam Realty, LLC et al
| John Marr |
| West Putnam Realty, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and PAG Greenwich M1, LLC |
| 3:2019cv01340 |
| August 29, 2019 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Johnson, D.) |
Filing 19
ORDER: Plaintiff filed a #17 notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. In addition, the #15 motion for leave to file a corrected petition for removal is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/7/2019. (Ram, Megha)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER: Defendants filed a #13 motion to seal the affidavit of John Pitblado. The affidavit was filed in response to the Court's 8 order requiring Defendants to file a sworn statement setting forth an adequate basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that the affidavit should be sealed (1) because "the Affidavit is not a 'judicial document,' and thus, no right of public access attaches thereto" and (2) "to protect the privacy interests of third parties who have no involvement in the subject lawsuit." ECF No. 13 at 4. I disagree. For the reasons discussed below, the #13 motion to seal is DENIED and the Clerk is directed to unseal the #14 filing. First, the affidavit is a "judicial document" subject to the right of public access. "In order to be designated a judicial document, the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Defendants argue that the affidavit is not a judicial document because "[o]nce the Court decides whether it has jurisdiction over this case, the Affidavit will not be useful in the judicial process." ECF No. 13 at 5. But, the Court's determination of whether it has jurisdiction is itself a key judicial function, and the affidavit is central to that determination. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to state the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction; there is no reason to apply a different rationale to notices of removal. In other words, facts related to the Court's jurisdiction are essential to the Court's adjudication of the case and should have been included in the first instance. The affidavit is therefore a judicial document to which a presumption of access attaches. Second, Defendants state that the affidavit includes information about "third party members of the Defendants who have no interest in the instant lawsuit." ECF No. 13 at 6. But as Defendants acknowledge, the individuals mentioned in the affidavit are members of the Defendants, and Defendants do not explain why these members should be considered third parties.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/7/2019. (Ram, Megha)
|
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Case by John Marr (Fitzpatrick, Kelly) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly A. Fitzpatrick on behalf of John Marr in addition to B.Flood (Fitzpatrick, Kelly) |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Petition for Removal by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 14 Sealed Document: Affidavit of John Pitblado by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC re #13 MOTION to Seal Affidavit of John Pitblado . (Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 13 MOTION to Seal Affidavit of John Pitblado by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC. (Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #7 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, #5 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, #9 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #11 Protective Order, #2 Notice (Other) filed by West Putnam Realty, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, #10 Electronic Filing Order, #4 Notice of Appearance filed by West Putnam Realty, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, #3 Notice of Appearance filed by West Putnam Realty, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, #1 Notice of Removal, filed by West Putnam Realty, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, #6 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by West Putnam Realty, LLC, 8 Order,,,,,,,,,, Signed by Clerk on 09/05/2019. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order on Removed Cases) (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: The Defendants' #1 Notice of Removal does not allege an adequate basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. It states that "Mercedes is a Delaware limited liability company, whose principals/members are residents of Sandy Springs, Georgia" and that "West Putnam Realty is a Delaware limited liability company, whose sole member is a resident of Bronx, New York." Blanket assertions of this nature are insufficient. See Avant Capital Partners, LLC v. W108 Dev. LLC, 2016 WL 3660756, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2016) ("The blanket assertion that none of W108 [LLC]'s members resides in Connecticut [does not] suffice."). Rather, Defendants must allege the citizenship of each of the members of the LLC with facts sufficient to determine their citizenship. See Mackason v. Diamond Fin. LLC, 347 F. Supp. 2d 53, 56 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (directing defendants to "identify [ ] each member of the defendant LLC..., and set[] forth with respect to each such member facts sufficient to demonstrate citizenship"). In addition, the Notice of Removal refers to the residence of Plaintiff Marr and of LLC members, instead of their citizenship or domicile. But alleging residence is insufficient for the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. See Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 1996) ("Because the complaint alleges only the residence, and not the citizenship, of some of the plaintiffs, we cannot determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists."); see also John Birch Soc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 377 F.2d 194, 199 (2d Cir. 1967) ("[I]t has long been held that a statement of residence, unlike domicile, tells the court only where the parties are living and not of which state they are citizens."). "Domicile is 'the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning." Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).Within fourteen days, the Defendants shall file a sworn statement on the docket setting forth the citizenship of the Plaintiff as well as the citizenship of each member of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and West Putnam Realty, LLC. If any member of either LLC is itself an LLC, the Defendants must also state the citizenship of each member of that LLC. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/4/2019. (Ram, Megha)
|
|
Filing 11
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 08/29/2019. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 10
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 08/29/2019. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 9
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 10/28/2019. Discovery due by 2/28/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 4/3/2020. Signed by Clerk on 08/29/2019. (Peterson, M)
|
| Judge Michael P. Shea added. (Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
| Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. (Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 6 Corporate Disclosure Statement by West Putnam Realty, LLC. (Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by PAG Greenwich M1, LLC. (Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by James M. Sconzo on behalf of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC (Sconzo, James) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by John C. Pitblado on behalf of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC (Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC Notice Regarding Pending Motions (Pitblado, John) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC from CT Superior Court, case number FST-CV19-6043342-S. Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ACTDC-5418879, filed by PAG Greenwich M1, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, West Putnam Realty, LLC.(Pitblado, John) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
