Guglielmo et al v. Vedda
| Eric Guglielmo and Christopher Guglielmo |
| Audrey Vedda |
| 3:2023cv00558 |
| May 1, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Jeffrey A Meyer |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 12, 2023. 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 (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Case by All Plaintiffs (Walko, Stephen) |
Filing 10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION. On review of the plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. #1 ), it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. There is no federal question asserted, and the case does not appear to satisfy either the complete diversity or amount-in-controversy criteria of federal diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. Plaintiffs Eric Guglielmo and Christopher Guglielmo are described as residents of Washington and Florida, respectively, while defendant Audrey Vedda is described as a resident of Florida. Doc. #1 at 2. If plaintiff Christopher Guglielmo and defendant Audrey Vedda are both domiciled in Florida (for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an individual's citizenship is determined by domicile, not residency, see Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 53-54 (2d Cir. 2019)), then there is not complete diversity between the plaintiffs and the defendant. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806). It is not relevant for federal diversity jurisdiction purposes that the trust's principal place of administration is in Connecticut. See Raymond Loubier Irrevocable Tr. v. Loubier, 858 F.3d 719, 730-31 (2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that for "traditional trusts, it is the citizenship of the trustees that is relevant to jurisdiction"). Moreover, the plaintiffs have sued defendant Audrey Vedda "individually" as well as in her capacity as a trustee. See Doc. #1 at 1. The complaint also does not allege the amount in controversy necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction. And the plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts from which one can conclude that the amount in controversy is at least $75,000. See Lapaglia v. Transamerica Cas. Ins. Co., 155 F. Supp. 3d 153, 154-55 (D. Conn. 2016). Accordingly, the plaintiffs shall file any response to this order to show cause by May 12, 2023, explaining why this Court should not dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 5/3/2023. (Mahard, S.)
|
| Filing 9 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Audrey Vedda* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Stephen George Walko* *Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC* *170 Mason Street* *Greenwich, CT 06830*. (Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| 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, 4 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #3 Disclosure Statement filed by Eric Guglielmo, Christopher Guglielmo, #1 Complaint filed by Eric Guglielmo, Christopher Guglielmo, #5 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #6 Electronic Filing Order, #2 Notice of Appearance filed by Eric Guglielmo, Christopher Guglielmo Signed by Clerk on 5/2/2023.(Chartier, AnnMarie) |
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 5/1/2023.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 5/1/2023.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/30/2023 Discovery due by 10/31/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 12/5/2023 Signed by Clerk on 5/1/2023.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
| Filing 4 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 5/1/23.(Hushin, Z.) |
| Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer and Judge Robert A. Richardson added. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 3 Disclosure Statement re: Citizenship by Christopher Guglielmo, Eric Guglielmo. (Walko, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrea Christine Sisca on behalf of Christopher Guglielmo, Eric Guglielmo (Sisca, Andrea) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT (Verified) against All Defendants ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-7332163.), filed by Eric Guglielmo, Christopher Guglielmo.(Walko, Stephen) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. (Walko, Stephen) |
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.
