62-64 Bank Street, LLC v. Amelio
| 62-64 Bank Street, LLC |
| Carmine Amelio |
| 3:2024cv01310 |
| August 13, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Omar A Williams |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Litchfield at Torrington. (Velez, F) |
| 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 (Velez, F) |
Filing 12
Order of Remand. Defendant seeks removal from a housing dispute in state court. Defendant previously sought removal of the same action to this court and it was denied by the Hon. Judge Vernon D. Oliver. See 3:24-cv-01206, Dkt. No. 12 (D. Conn. July 24, 2024).A party seeking to remove a case based on diversity jurisdiction must aver that all of the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been met. Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347, 356 (2d Cir. 2011). A case is removable when the initial pleading enables the defendant to intelligently ascertain removability from the face of such pleading as required by 28 U.S.C. 1446(a). Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 205-06 (2d Cir. 2001) (cleaned up). A pleading enables a defendant to intelligently ascertain removability when it provides the necessary facts to support [the] removal petition. Id. at 206 (citation omitted). In cases where removal is based upon diversity, the facts required to support the removal petition include the amount in controversy and the address of each party. Id. Where a defendant seeks removal based solely on diversity of citizenship, the defendant bears the burden of satisfying the requirements. Yakin v. Tyler Hill Corp., 566 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2009) ("[T]he removing defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the propriety of removal."). As preliminary matter, the parties must be diverse both at the time of removal and at the time the state court complaint was filed. Second, the amount in controversy must be satisfied. Plainly stating a person's residency, without more, is not enough to establish citizenship for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). Here, the court notes that the defendant insists his domicile is in New York. He asserted the same in a previous attempt to remove this action that was denied by the Honorable Judge Vernon D. Oliver. See 3:24-cv-01206, Dkt. No. 1 (D. Conn. July 17, 2024). Despite Defendant's assertion in the previous removal attempt, and now here, Defendant identifies their address as being in New Milford, Connecticut. Also, Defendant does not provide an address listed in their name in New York. Additionally, Defendant was served in the underlying state action at the listed New Milford address via mail. More is needed than a mere assertion of domicile, especially in light of the fact that the defendant lists their address as being in New York. Finally, this particular defendant has been warned by one court in this circuit for filing frivolous removal actions. See Comm'r of Motor Vehicles v. Amelio, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88606, *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2024). Without the requisite specificity, the court can only conclude that complete diversity is lacking. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to state court sua sponte for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of this Order shall be emailed to Defendant. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 8/29/2024.(Lussier, Nicolas)
|
| Filing 11 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 10
Standing Order re: Letters. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 08/13/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 9
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 08/13/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 8
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 08/13/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 7
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 10/12/2024. Discovery due by 2/12/2025. Dispositive Motions due by 3/19/2025. Signed by Clerk on 08/13/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
| Set Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/26/2024. (Velez, F) |
| Judge Omar A. Williams and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 6 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 8/13/2024.(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Carmine Amelio. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 4 Consent to Electronic Notice by Carmine Amelio (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Pro Se Appearance by Carmine Amelio (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Carmine Amelio. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Carmine Amelio from Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield at Torrington, case number LLICV246035911S., filed by Carmine Amelio.(Gaskins, A) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2024: #1 Coversheet, #2 Exhibit) (Gaskins, A). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2024: #3 envelope) (Gaskins, A). |
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
| Search for this case: 62-64 Bank Street, LLC v. Amelio | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Carmine Amelio | |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: 62-64 Bank Street, LLC | |
| 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.
