Mayo v. Graham et al
| Antoine Mayo |
| Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Curtis Lee Graham, Jr. |
| 1:2021cv01907 |
| April 8, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brian M Cogan |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle ( |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Curtis Lee Graham, Jr, Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (Fields, Gavin) |
Order of Remand to Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, case number 506380/2019. Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate applicability of the bad-faith exception to justify removal outside the one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(1). As stated in the Court's Order to Show Cause #6 , plaintiffs failure to timely provide a statement of damages does not establish bad faith, particularly given defendants' failure to diligently pursue the information. Nor does the inclusion of a non-diverse defendant, who was sued at the inception of the case for his involvement in the accident, constitute bad faith. That defendants could not remove and seek his dismissal as improperly joined without plaintiffs statement of damages is not compelling given that the non-diverse defendant was dismissed over six months ago, and defendants made little effort to compel plaintiff to provide a timely response as to damages. Since federal courts must construe questions of removal narrowly, resolving all doubts against removability, Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2013), the case is remanded. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 4/16/2021. (Cogan, Brian)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Defendants have already addressed the "bad faith" exception in their notice of removal and I find their argument unpersuasive. Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by April 16, 2021 if there any other facts left out of the notice of removal which would show the applicability of the bad faith exception. See attached Order for details. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 4/9/2021. (Weisberg, Peggy)
|
| Filing 5 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 4 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. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 3 Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Notice of Removal,,, by Curtis Lee Graham, Jr, Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (Fields, Gavin) |
| Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet. The Clerk's Office cannot assign this case without a completed Civil Cover Sheet. All questions *** INCLUDING the CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY*** section on the second page needs to be answered. Please submit Civil Cover Sheet. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Brian M. Cogan. 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. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Curtis Lee Graham, Jr, Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC identifying Other Affiliate Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. for Curtis Lee Graham Jr., Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (Fields, Gavin) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Curtis Lee Graham, Jr, Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC from Supreme Court, Kings County, case number 506380/2019. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-14355253) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit B-Verified Answer of Def. Graham and Swift, #3 Exhibit C-Verified Answer of Def. Defreitas, #4 Exhibit D-Decision, #5 Exhibit E-Demand for Damages, #6 Exhibit F-Preliminary Conference Order, #7 Exhibit G-Response to Demand for Damages, #8 Exhibit H-Email correspondence, #9 Exhibit I-Motion to Dismiss, #10 Exhibit J-Email correspondence, #11 Exhibit K-Bill of Particulars, #12 Exhibit L-Compliance Conference Order, #13 Certificate of Service) (Fields, Gavin) |
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
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.
