Heald v. Pajarito Scientific Corporation
| Christopher Heald |
| Pajarito Scientific Corporation |
| 3:2024cv00628 |
| April 5, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vernon D Oliver |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2024. 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 (Samson, J) |
Filing 21
ORDER remanding the case to the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London, from which Defendant removed it on the stated ground of diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's May 14, 2024 Order to Show Cause 19 directing him to file and serve an estimate of his alleged damages in this action by May 21, 2024. As this Court explained in its Order, in order to proceed with this matter, there must be proof that the requisite jurisdictional amount of $75,000 is in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Absent diversity jurisdiction, there appears to be no basis for removal of this action -- i.e., no alternative subject matter jurisdiction in that there is no "federal question" present. See 28 U.S.C. 1331. Accordingly, in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS the case to state court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 5/22/2024.(Lapsia, T)
|
|
Filing 20
26(f) NOTICE: The Court has reviewed the file in this case to monitor the parties' compliance with Local Rule 26(f). The Form 26(f) report was due to be filed on or before May 20, 2024, that is, 44 days after a defendant's appearance. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(f)(1) ("Within thirty days after the first appearance of a defendant, the attorneys of record and any self-represented parties who have appeared in the case shall confer for the purposes described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). The conference ordinarily shall be initiated by the plaintiff, and may be conducted by telephone or electronic audio or video conferencing service. Within fourteen (14) days after the conference, the participants shall jointly complete and file a report in the form prescribed by Form 26(f), which appears in the Appendix to these Rules."). To date, the parties have not complied with Local Rule 26(f). Accordingly, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for the parties to file the Form 26(f) report in compliance with the Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to May 31, 2024. Failure to comply with this deadline may result in sanctions, including fines. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 5/21/2024.(Lapsia, T)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re #1 Notice of Removal: "[A] court must satisfy itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction and may at any time in the course of litigation consider whether such jurisdiction exists." Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006). "If necessary, the court must consider its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte." Perez v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:14-CV-01565 CSH, 2014 WL 7428280, at *1 (D. Conn. Dec. 31, 2014). Regarding removal, "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C.A. 1447(c).Federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over actions where there is complete diversity among parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). A removing party must establish "that it appears to 'a reasonable probability' that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount," exclusive of interest and cost. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 305 (2d Cir. 1994). Here, Defendant asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists. (ECF No. #1 .) But the pleadings do not establish to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that "[t]he matter in controversy exceeds the sum of value of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs." (ECF No. #1 at 3 13.) "It may be that Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000, but he has neither prayed for such an amount nor detailed specific damages that give rise to such a prayer." Perez, 2014 WL 7428280, at *4. The Complaint simply states, "The Plaintiff claims the amount in demand in excess of $15,000 exclusive of interest and costs." (ECF No. [1-1] at 12.) And even assuming all Plaintiff's allegations as true, there are no plausible allegations in the Complaint (id. at 8-12) concerning damages that would enable the Court to conclude to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be remanded due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By May 21, 2024, Plaintiff shall file and serve an estimate of his alleged damages in this action, indicating the general bases for his calculation. Upon conclusion of his calculation, he must explicitly declare whether he alleges that his damages exceed the sum or value of $75,000, the jurisdictional amount pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Whether or not Plaintiff declares that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, Defendant must file and serve, on or before May 28, 2024, a response and competent proof justifying its allegations of the jurisdictional amount.The parties are on notice that failure to comply with these deadlines may result in remand. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 5/14/2024.(Lapsia, T)
|
| Filing 18 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Pajarito Scientific Corporation.(Shea, James) |
| Filing 17 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Christopher Heald. (Reilly, Michael) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael John Reilly on behalf of Christopher Heald (Reilly, Michael) |
| Answer deadline updated for Pajarito Scientific Corporation to 5/13/2024. (Velez, F) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time: The deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is extended to May 13, 2024. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 4/8/2024. (Lapsia, T)
|
| Filing 14 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 #9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until May 13, 2024 to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation, #13 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, #5 Notice (Other) filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation, #12 Standing Protective Order, #2 Notice of Appearance filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation, #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation, #4 Notice (Other) filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation, #11 Electronic Filing Order, 8 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #7 Disclosure Statement, filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation, #3 Notice of Appearance filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation, #10 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #6 Notice (Other) filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation Signed by Clerk on 4/8/2024. (Attachments: #1 Standing order on removed cases)(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until May 13, 2024 to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint #1 Notice of Removal, by Pajarito Scientific Corporation. (Shea, James) |
| Set Deadline: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/19/2024. (Velez, F) |
| Filing 13 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 12
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 4/5/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 4/5/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 10
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/4/2024 Discovery due by 10/5/2024 Dispositive Motions due by 11/9/2024 Signed by the Clerk on 4/5/2024.(Gaskins, A) Modified to remove judges name on 4/8/2024 (Gaskins, A).
|
| Filing 8 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 4/5/24.(Hushin, Z.) |
| Filing 7 Disclosure Statement by Pajarito Scientific Corporation identifying Corporate Parent Nucfil, LLC d/b/a NFT, Other Affiliate Alpha Safety Intermediate, LLC, Other Affiliate Safariland, LLC, Other Affiliate Cadre Holdings, Inc. for Pajarito Scientific Corporation. (Shea, James) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE by Pajarito Scientific Corporation Statement of Removal (Shea, James) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE by Pajarito Scientific Corporation Notice of Pending Motions (Shea, James) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE by Pajarito Scientific Corporation Certificate of Filing Notice of Removal (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - CT Superior Court Notice of Removal)(Shea, James) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael P. Lewis on behalf of Pajarito Scientific Corporation (Lewis, Michael) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by James F. Shea on behalf of Pajarito Scientific Corporation (Shea, James) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Pajarito Scientific Corporation from Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London, case number KNL-CV24-6066634-S. Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ACTDC-7712456, filed by Pajarito Scientific Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - CT Superior Court Complaint)(Shea, James) |
| Judge Vernon D. Oliver and Judge Robert A. Richardson 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
| Search for this case: Heald v. Pajarito Scientific Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Christopher Heald | |
| Represented By: | Emanuele Robert Cicchiello |
| Represented By: | Michael John Reilly |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Pajarito Scientific Corporation | |
| Represented By: | James F. Shea |
| Represented By: | Michael P. Lewis |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
