Sabino v. Otis Elevator Company
| Estuardo Sabino |
| Otis Elevator Company |
| 1:2021cv03754 |
| July 2, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brian M Cogan |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
Order of Remand to State Court. to Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings, case number 512998/2021.Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 7/9/2021. (Marziliano, August)
|
| Filing 9 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Estuardo Sabino. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1: Property Deed, #2 Exhibit 2: Supplemental Summons and Amended Complaint) (Martinez, Ricardo) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Otis Elevator Company (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Regan, Todd) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint Affirmative Defenses, Demand for Statement of Damages and Certification Pursuant to Local R. Civ. P. 1.6 by Otis Elevator Company. (Regan, Todd) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Ricardo Juan Martinez on behalf of Estuardo Sabino (aty to be noticed) (Martinez, Ricardo) |
| 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) |
| 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 resubmit 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) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Defendant is ordered to show cause by 7/13/2021 why this action should not be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, based on a failure to properly invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction. See Casas v. Brewer, No. 21-cv-927, 2021 WL 781744, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. March 1, 2021); Wellington v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. 18-cv-7132, 2019 WL 1060801, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. March 6, 2019). Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 7/6/2021. (Weisberg, Peggy)
|
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Otis Elevator Company (Regan, Todd) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd Regan on behalf of Otis Elevator Company (notification declined or already on case) (Regan, Todd) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Otis Elevator Company Removal from Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings, case number 512998/2021. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-14624180) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit Ex. B - Service of Process Papers, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C - Otis Answer, #4 Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal, #5 Notice to Adverse Party, #6 Certificate of Service) (Regan, Todd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/6/2021: #7 Civil Cover Sheet) (Bowens, Priscilla). |
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: Sabino v. Otis Elevator Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Otis Elevator Company | |
| Represented By: | Todd Regan |
| 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: Estuardo Sabino | |
| Represented By: | Daniela F. Henriques |
| Represented By: | Ricardo Juan Martinez |
| 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.
