Miro et al v. Corporation
| Ross Tuttle and Darcy Miro |
| Target Corporation |
| 1:2021cv03163 |
| June 4, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Sanket J Bulsara |
| Eric N Vitaliano |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 Personal Injury |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 27, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
RE-SCHEDULING ORDER: Due to a scheduling conflict the telephonic initial conference scheduled for 8/27/2021 will now be held on 9/17/2021 at 12:30 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. The parties are directed to call the toll-free number 877-336-1274. The access code is 6534420. The parties shall dial in five (5) minutes before the scheduled conference. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 7/27/2021. (Manson, Eddie)
|
| Filing 9 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara for all further proceedings. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano no longer assigned to case. 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. (Herrera, Isaiah) |
| Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. (Herrera, Isaiah) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE by Target Corporation Notice and Consent to Refer to Magistrate Judge (Spitz, Alice) |
|
RE-SCHEDULING ORDER: Due to a scheduling conflict the telephonic initial conference scheduled for 8/6/2021 will now be held on 8/27/2021 at 12:30 P.M. before Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. The parties are directed to call the toll-free number 877-336-1274. The access code is 6534420. The parties shall dial in five (5) minutes before the scheduled conference. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 7/20/2021. (Manson, Eddie)
|
| Filing 7 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (Spitz, Alice) |
|
Filing 6
SCHEDULING ORDER: A telephonic initial conference will be held at 11:30 A.M. on 8/06/2021 before Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. The parties are directed to call the toll-free number 877-336-1274. The access code is 6534420. The parties shall dial in five (5) minutes before the conference. Counsel are directed to complete the attached Rule 26(f) Report and electronically file same with the Court no later than two days before 8/06/2021. Should the parties wish to adopt a plan for discovery different from the structure in the Rule 26(f) Report, they may do so only if they file a letter explaining why such a plan is appropriate in this case. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/14/2021. (Manson, Eddie)
|
| Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT/AFFIRMATION re Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, #1 Notice of Removal Affirmation in Support of Removal by Target Corporation (Spitz, Alice) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Target Corporation. (Spitz, Alice) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiffs Darcy Miro and Ross Tuttle initiated this action in Kings County Supreme Court on April 9, 2021. (See Notice of Removal dated June 4, 2021 ("Notice of Removal"), Dkt. No. #1 , at para. 1). Defendant removed this action to the Eastern District of New York on June 4, 2021. (See id.). Defendant alleges this Court has removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) because this Court possessed original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), that is, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are diverse. (Id. paras. 10-11). The burden of demonstrating removal jurisdiction rests with the removing parties. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919 v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[T]he party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court[.]"). Section 1332(a) requires complete diversity among the plaintiffs and defendants for a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. Herrick Co. v. SCS Commc'ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[D]iversity jurisdiction is available only when all adverse parties to a litigation are completely diverse in their citizenships."). "For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party's citizenship depends on [her] domicile." Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998). "[T]he domicile of a party to a diversity of citizenship case is the place where that individual has a true, fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever that person is absent from the jurisdiction, he or she has the intention of returning[.]" 13E Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 3612 (3d ed. 2021); Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000). "Mere allegations of residency in a state cannot establish citizenship." Reviakine v. Mednikov, No. 15-CV-227, 2016 WL 8711206, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016) (citing Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997)). This is because, among other reasons, "[i]t is possible to reside at one place and be domiciled at another." Id. (quoting Young v. Century House Hist. Soc'y, 117 F. Supp. 2d 277, 280 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)). Defendant alleges that this Court possesses diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff Miro "resides" in New York, (Notice of Removal para. 7), and because Defendant is a citizen of Minnesota, (id. para. 8). The Notice of Removal does not disclose any information about Plaintiff Tuttle. (See id.). Based upon this record, the Court would be forced to conclude that diversity jurisdiction is not present or, at minimum, that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate complete diversity and, therefore, removal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Centermark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d at 302 ("[D]efendants do not aver in their notice of removal that complete diversity of citizenship exists between each member of the Union and defendants, May and Meriden Square.... While we would be surprised if the Union had any members who were commuting to work from their residences in Missouri or Illinois, we are not free to speculate on the citizenship of each of the Union's members in the complete absence of any evidence regarding members' citizenship. On this record, therefore, we believe it prudent to remand the issue and thereby allow the parties to supplement the record on the issue of each Union member's citizenship and allow the district court to make an initial determination as to whether complete diversity of citizenship exists in this case."). For these reasons, by 6/15/2021, Defendant is directed to show cause why this action should not be remanded to Kings County Supreme Court. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/7/2021. (Altreuter, Sylvia)
|
| 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 Target Corporation from Supreme Court of The State of New York, case number 508361/2021. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-14536290) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Spitz, Alice) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Eric N. Vitaliano and Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. 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) |
| 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. (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
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.
