R & I Trading of New York, Inc. et al v. Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC
| R Y Aviation INC. and R & I Trading of New York, Inc. |
| Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC |
| 3:2020cv00074 |
| January 15, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Special Defenses by Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC.(Lee, Mark) |
Filing 15
ORDER. The defendant's #14 motion for extension of time until March 5, 2020 to file a responsive pleading is GRANTED.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 2/28/2020. (Hausmann, Amy)
|
| Answer deadline updated for Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC to 3/5/2020. (Johnson, D.) |
| Filing 14 MOTION for Extension of Time until 3-5-2020 answer by Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC. (Lee, Mark) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark F. Lee on behalf of Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC (Lee, Mark) |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by R & I Trading of New York, Inc., R Y Aviation INC.. Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC served on 2/6/2020, answer due 2/27/2020. (Regan, Michael) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER. The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's #10 response regarding the defendant's citizenship for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The complaint and the response together appear to set forth an adequate basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff shall serve the summons and #1 complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 1/21/2020. (Hausmann, Amy)
|
| Filing 10 RESPONSE re 4 Order,,,,,, by R & I Trading of New York, Inc., R Y Aviation INC.(Letter from Michael P. Regan to Judge Michael P. Shea). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Regan, Michael) |
| Filing 9 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Michael P. Regan* *Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP* *1301 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor* *New York, NY 10019*. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 8 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 Protective Order, #5 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #2 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by R & I Trading of New York, Inc., R Y Aviation INC., #6 Electronic Filing Order, 4 Order #1 Complaint, filed by R & I Trading of New York, Inc., R Y Aviation INC., #3 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by R & I Trading of New York, Inc., R Y Aviation INC. Signed by Clerk on 01/16/20202. (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER. The #1 Complaint does not allege an adequate basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. "[F]or purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company has the citizenship of its membership." Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). The Complaint alleges that the "Defendant is a single member limited liability company" and that its "sole member... resides" in Connecticut. ECF No. 1 paras. 9-10. But the complaint does not make any allegations regarding that sole member's citizenship, which is different from mere residence. To be a citizen of a state for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an individual "must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State." Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989). "[T]he party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction" in federal courts "must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction." McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Therefore, within 14 days, the Plaintiffs shall file a statement on the docket setting forth the citizenship of the Defendant's sole member. If they cannot do so, they may take limited discovery aimed at identifying the citizenship of that member. Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of the case.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 1/16/2020. (Hausmann, Amy)
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 01/15/2020. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 01/15/2020. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 3/15/2020. Discovery due by 7/16/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 8/20/2020. Signed by Clerk on 01/15/2020. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement of R Y Aviation Inc. by R & I Trading of New York, INC., R Y Aviation INC.. (Regan, Michael) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement of R & I Trading of New York, Inc. by R & I Trading of New York, INC., R Y Aviation INC.. (Regan, Michael) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against EXECUTIVE AIRCRAFT INTERIORS, LLC ( Filing fee $400 receipt number ACTDC-5639975.), filed by R & I TRADING OF NEW YORK, INC., R Y AVIATION INC.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Regan, Michael) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC. (Regan, Michael) |
| Judge Michael P. Shea added. (Oliver, T.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US 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.
