Roque v. South Shore Marina, LLC
| Johann Roque |
| South Shore Marina, LLC |
| 1:2020cv05374 |
| November 5, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Robert M Levy |
| Roslynn R Mauskopf |
| Marine |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1333 Admiralty |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 18, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER OF REMAND granting #5 #8 Motion to Remand to State Court: Upon the letter motion of plaintiff (Doc. No. #5 ), and upon the consent of defendant (Doc. No. #8 ), this action is hereby REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings (Original Case Number 517997/2020). The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case forthwith pursuant to this Order, and close the file in this Court. Ordered by Chief Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 11/18/2020. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)
|
| Filing 8 Letter MOTION to Remand to State Court by South Shore Marina, LLC. (Mercante, James) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Defendant South Shore Marina LLC shall Show Cause In Writing, by November 17, 2020, why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. South Shore bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper, and the Court may raise questions as to its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, and at any time during the course of the litigation. South Shore's letter at Doc. No. #6 fails to establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. As South Shore points to In re Germain as controlling in setting forth the modern standard in the Second Circuit for defining "navigable waters", a key element of jurisdiction here. Yet, South Shore has failed to address in any way the all of the elements of that definition, instead merely quibbling over whether the depth of the waters at issue is material on the issue. South Shore is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING, by November 17, 2020, why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, fully addressing the legal and factual bases for such jurisdiction, with proper affidavits and legal citations as necessary. Failure to timely respond will result in remand. Plaintiff shall file any response by November 20. In order to avoid any delay and to ensure that this action is committed to the proper court, no extensions to these deadlines will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Ordered by Chief Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 11/12/2020. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)
|
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint by South Shore Marina, LLC. (Poling, Kristin) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE in Opposition re #5 Letter MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by South Shore Marina, LLC. (Mercante, James) |
| Filing 5 Letter MOTION to Remand to State Court by Johann Roque. (Nick, Glenn) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn William Nick on behalf of All Plaintiffs (notification declined or already on case) (Nick, Glenn) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 2 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by South Shore Marina, LLC from Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, case number 517997/2020. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ANYEDC-13637939) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Poling, Kristin) |
| Case Assigned to Chief Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf and Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly) |
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 New York Eastern 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: Roque v. South Shore Marina, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: South Shore Marina, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Kristin Eileen Poling |
| Represented By: | James Edward Mercante |
| 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: Johann Roque | |
| Represented By: | Glenn William Nick |
| 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.
