Finkeldey v. Walmart Inc. et al
| Melanie Finkeldey |
| Walmart Inc., Putnam Acquisition Limited Partnership and WS Asset Management, Inc. |
| 3:2022cv00340 |
| March 3, 2022 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Melanie Finkeldey.Responses due by 5/18/2022 (Mahony, Alexa) |
| Filing 22 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Mahony, Alexa) |
| Filing 21 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Mahony, Alexa) |
| Docket Entry Correction re #19 Answer to Complaint, entered in error per attorney Douglas M. Connors office. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 20 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Putnam Acquisition Limited Partnership, Walmart Inc..(Connors, Douglas) |
| Filing 19 ***Entered in Error*** ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by WS Asset Management, Inc., Walmart Inc..(Connors, Douglas) Modified on 4/25/2022 (Fanelle, N.). |
| Set Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/4/2022 (Johnson, D.) |
Filing 18
26(f) NOTICE: The Court has reviewed the file in this case to monitor the parties' compliance with Local Rule 26(f). Local Rule 26(f) provides that, within 30 days after the appearance of any defendant, the attorneys of record and any unrepresented parties must confer for purposes described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Local Rule 26(f) further provides that, within 14 days after the conference, the participants must jointly file a report of the conference using Form 26(f). It appears that more than forty-four days have passed since the first appearance of a defendant in this case but no report has been filed. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the parties file on or before May 4, 2022 (1) a written statement signed by all counsel of record demonstrating that this case is exempt from the requirement of filing a Form 26(f) report; or (2) a Form 26(f) report along with a written statement signed by all counsel of record explaining why sanctions should not be imposed for the parties' failure to comply with Local Rule 26(f). Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the complaint and/or monetary sanctions being imposed on counsel. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 4/20/2022. (Silva, Madeline)
|
| Filing 17 NOTICE by Putnam Acquisition Limited Partnership, WS Asset Management, Inc. re #15 Notice of Appearance Amended Certificate of Service (Connors, Douglas) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE by Walmart Inc. Regarding Citizenship of Parties (Springer, George) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas M. Connors on behalf of Putnam Acquisition Limited Partnership, WS Asset Management, Inc. (Connors, Douglas) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE by Walmart Inc. of Service of Court Orders in Removed Cases (Springer, George) |
| Filing 13 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 #1 Notice of Removal filed by Walmart Inc., #2 Notice of Appearance filed by Walmart Inc., #3 Notice (Other) filed by Walmart Inc., #9 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #7 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Walmart Inc., #4 Answer to Complaint filed by Walmart Inc., #8 Notice of Appearance filed by Walmart Inc., #6 Notice (Other) filed by Walmart Inc., 11 Order,,,,,,,,,,,, #10 Electronic Filing Order, #12 Protective Order, #5 Notice (Other) filed by Walmart Inc. Signed by Clerk on 03/04/2022. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order on Removed Cases)(Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER. The #3 Notice of Removal does not state an adequate basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. "If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and no party has called the matter to the court's attention, the court has the duty to dismiss the action sua sponte." Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2009). The citizenship of the Plaintiff and Defendant Putnam Acquisition Limited Partnership is inadequately pled, preventing the Court from verifying that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. More specifically, the Notice of Removal alleges only the place of organization and principal place of business of Putnam Acquisition Limited Partnership. But the citizenship of a limited partnership is determined by the citizenship of all the members of the limited partnership. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990) (holding that, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited partnership takes the citizenship of all of its partners, and deciding to "adhere to [its] oft-repeated rule that diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against the entity depends on the citizenship of all the members") (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon v. Pickett, 11 F. Supp. 2d 449, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("In Carden v. Arkoma Associates, the Supreme Court [held that limited partnerships are] citizens of every state of which any of their limited partners is a citizen notwithstanding the fact that limited partners have no role in management of and virtually no liability for the debts of the partnership."). Therefore, in order to allege diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must identify and allege the citizenship of all the members of Putnam Acquisition Limited Partnership, including any limited partners. In addition, the Notice of Removal alleges that the plaintiff "resides in" Connecticut, ECF No. 1 at 3, but neither the notice of removal nor any other document makes any allegations regarding the plaintiff'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 court "must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction." McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Therefore, no later than March 18, 2022, Defendant Walmart, Inc., shall file a statement on the docket setting forth the citizenship of the plaintiff and of the defendant. If the defendant cannot do so, it may take limited discovery aimed at identifying citizenship. Failure to respond to this order will result in a remand of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/4/2022. (Silva, Madeline)
|
|
Filing 12
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 03/03/2022. (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 03/03/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 9
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/2/2022. Discovery due by 9/2/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 10/7/2022. Signed by Clerk on 03/03/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric B. Caines on behalf of Walmart Inc. (Caines, Eric) |
| Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Walmart Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Walmart Inc. for Walmart Inc.. (Springer, George) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE by Walmart Inc. of Statement Regarding Removed Cases (Springer, George) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE by Walmart Inc. Pending Motions (Springer, George) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Walmart Inc..(Springer, George) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Walmart Inc. Certificate of Filing Notice of Removal in State Court (Springer, George) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by George C. Springer, Jr on behalf of Walmart Inc. (Springer, George) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Walmart Inc. from Hartford, case number HHD-CV22-6151974-S. Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ACTDC-6851767, filed by Walmart Inc..(Springer, George) |
| 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 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.
