SMI Logistics, LLC v. Peric et al
| SMI Logistics, LLC |
| Mujo Peric, Nedeljka Peric, Richard Grein and Helms Bros, Inc. |
| 1:2022cv02902 |
| May 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| William F Kuntz |
| Taryn A Merkl |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 First MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement #1 Complaint, #8 Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference,, by SMI Logistics, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Motion, #2 Memorandum in Support, #3 Certificate of Service) (Best, K. Candis) |
| Filing 9 Letter Cover Letter for Notice of Motion filings by SMI Logistics, LLC (Best, K. Candis) |
Filing 8
ORDER: In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court has suspended its pre-motion conference requirement. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for a pre-motion conference as moot, ECF No. 7, and GRANTS leave to file the anticipated motion to remove Defendants Grein and Helms Brothers Auto, Inc. The Court sets the following briefing schedule: Plaintiff shall submit the motion by Monday, June 27, 2022 at 5:00 P.M.; and Defendants shall submit a response, if any, by Friday, July 8, 2022 at 5:00 P.M. As a courtesy, the Court requests the parties refrain from filing motion papers until the motion has been fully briefed. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 6/22/2022. (Herrera, Isaiah)
|
|
ORDER: In light of the Honorable William F. Kuntz's 6/22/2022 Order #8 granting Plaintiff leave to file its anticipated motion to remove the non-diverse Defendants, the Court's 6/27/2022 Order to Show Cause deadline is hereby adjourned sine die. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 6/22/2022. (Cahn, Gabriel)
|
| Filing 7 Letter MOTION for pre motion conference re #1 Complaint, Order to Show Cause,,,,, by SMI Logistics, LLC. (Best, K. Candis) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts have an independent obligation to examine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Pan v. Whitaker, 351 F. Supp. 3d 246, 249-50 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). "If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be dismissed." Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff's complaint #1 invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction, but alleges that both Plaintiff and Defendant Helms Bros, Inc. are citizens of New York, and that Defendant and Richard Grein is an employee of Helms Bros. in New York, with an unknown residence. (Compl., ECF No. 1, 3-7.) This does not establish diversity citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), which requires that the action be between citizens of different States. See El-Bey v. Brooklyn Hosp., No. 20-CV-3296 (EK) (LB), 2020 WL 7042812, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2020) ("For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendants."). In accordance with the foregoing, no later than 6/27/2022, Plaintiff is directed to show cause why this Court should not recommend dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 6/17/2022. (Devanathan, Deepa)
|
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by SMI Logistics, LLC. Nedeljka Peric served on 5/26/2022, answer due 6/16/2022. (Best, K. Candis) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by SMI Logistics, LLC. Mujo Peric served on 5/26/2022, answer due 6/16/2022. (Best, K. Candis) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Richard Grein, Helms Bros, Inc., Mujo Peric, Nedeljka Peric. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| 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 COMPLAINT SMI Logistics LLC against All Defendants filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-15584021 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by SMI Logistics, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons) (Best, K. Candis) |
| Case Assigned to Judge William F. Kuntz, II and Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl. 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) |
| NOTICE : Please file the Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Proposed Summon and pay the Civil Filing Fee for the following case so that it may be processed. (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.
