Shaheid v. Greenwich Insurance Company
| Bibi Shaheid |
| Greenwich Insurance Company |
| 1:2023cv00808 |
| February 2, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT RULE 26(f) MEETING REPORT (McHugh, Russell) |
ORDER: The parties request an extension of the deadline to file their Rule 26(f) Report and for an adjournment of the initial conference. ECF No. 11. The request is granted. The parties shall file their Rule 26(f) Report by March 19, 2023. The Court shall hold the initial conference on April 4, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11A South of the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 3/10/2023. (IK)
|
| Filing 11 Letter Requesting Extension of Time by Bibi Shaheid (McHugh, Russell) |
| Filing 10 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Bibi Shaheid (McHugh, Russell) |
|
ORDER: Defendant's counsel removed this diversity motor vehicle case from Queens County Supreme Court on February 2, 2023. ECF No. #1 . Any party seeking a trial by jury shall file a jury demand by March 15, 2023. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(3)(A). The Court shall hold the initial conference on March 16, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11A South of the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. The parties shall exchange their Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and file their Rule 26(f) Meeting Report with the Court by March 9, 2023. Parties are advised that they must contact each other before making any request for an adjournment to the Court. Any request for an adjournment must be electronically filed with the Court at least seventy-two (72) hours before the scheduled conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 3/7/2023. (VP)
|
| Filing 9 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for all further proceedings. Judge Brian M. Cogan 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. (RG) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE by Bibi Shaheid NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE (McHugh, Russell) |
|
Filing 7
SCHEDULING ORDER: A telephonic Initial Status Conference is set for 3/9/2023 at 10:00 am. Parties will use the toll-free number 888-684-8852 followed by access code 6427877#. When the conference begins parties will be prompted to input the security code 0808#. See attached mandatory requirements for the conference. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 2/16/2023. (PW)
|
| Filing 6 Letter re show cause by Greenwich Insurance Company (Zimmerman, Kevin) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by 2/17/2023 why this action should not be remanded because defendant has failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. See, e.g., CG by Georges v. Target Corp., No. 22-CV-6247, 2022 WL 15497124, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2022). Nor can defendant piece together various pieces of vague evidence to contend that the amount in controversy is met. See, e.g., Steele v. Charles George Cos., No. 15-cv-281, 2015 WL 2069895, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2015) (finding that medical records are insufficient where they do not "explicitly specify any amount of monetary damages"); Kunstenaar v. Hertz Vehicles, LLC, No. 14-cv-1101, 2014 WL 1485843, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2014) (noting that "an oblique reference to medical bills, standing alone, is not the explicit statement of monetary damages sought required by the Second Circuit") (internal quotations omitted); Battaglia v. Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P., No. 08-cv-2623, 2008 WL 2946009, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2008) (internal quotations omitted). There is an established procedure to determine the amount in controversy in C.P.L.R. 3017 and defendant ought to use it. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 2/10/2023. (PW)
|
| Filing 5 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
| 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. (KD) |
| 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. (KD) |
| Case Reassigned 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. (KD) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Greenwich Insurance Company identifying Corporate Parent Greenwich Insurance Company for Greenwich Insurance Company. (Zimmerman, Kevin) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Greenwich Insurance Company from Supreme Court Queens County, case number 726249/2022. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-16372682) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A- Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - answer) (Zimmerman, Kevin) |
| Filing 1 Civil Cover Sheet.. by Greenwich Insurance Company (Zimmerman, Kevin) |
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: Shaheid v. Greenwich Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bibi Shaheid | |
| Represented By: | Russell T. McHugh |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Greenwich Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Kevin Michael Zimmerman |
| 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.
