Johnson v. Wallace
| Wanda Johnson |
| Joel Wallace |
| 1:2023cv02980 |
| April 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Hector Gonzalez |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Letter in response to Order of May 26, 2023 and reporting settlement of case by Joel Wallace (Brophy, Patrick) |
ORDER: The Court has received Defendant's letter indicating that the parties have reached a settlement in principle. See ECF No. #13 . The parties shall file a stipulation of voluntary dismissal on or before July 6, 2023, or else they shall file on that date the joint letter and case management plan required by the Court's prior scheduling order. See ECF No. #8 . If the parties fail either to dismiss the case or to file a case management plan on or before July 6, 2023, then the Court will promptly enter a discovery schedule allowing no more than 90 days for fact discovery without seeking further input from the parties. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 6/6/2023. (BH)
|
| Filing 12 Letter on behalf of Defendant Joel Wallace in response to Your Honors electronic Order of May 22, 2023 and Plaintiffs counsels letter of today by Joel Wallace (Brophy, Patrick) |
| Filing 11 Letter by Wanda Johnson (Pager, William) |
|
ORDER: The Court previously ordered the parties to file a joint letter indicating whether Plaintiff would agree to seek less than the amount of damages necessary to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold of 28 U.S.C. 1332 and if Defendant would consent to the case being remanded to state court on that basis. Plaintiff has responded with a letter indicating that she is interested in settling the case, that Defendant's insurance carrier is willing to pay up to the $25,000 limit of its policy, but that Plaintiff is inquiring whether Defendant has additional insurance coverage in excess of that amount. See ECF No. #11 . Since Plaintiff is apparently seeking additional sources of funds from which to recover damages, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff's complaint, which alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to $5 million in damages, fails to satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore, at this point, declines to remand the case to state court.The parties shall file their joint letter describing the case and proposed case management plan on or before June 6, 2023, as required by the Court's prior scheduling order. See ECF No. #8 . The Court will not adjourn that deadline or exempt the parties from their discovery obligations merely because Plaintiff is pursuing settlement opportunities. If the parties do not submit a proposed case management plan by June 6, 2023, then the Court will promptly enter a discovery schedule allowing no more than 90 days for fact discovery without seeking further input from the parties. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 5/26/2023. (BH)
|
|
ORDER: Based on the Court's review of Defendant's notice of removal and the parties' letters, the Court concludes that this case was properly removed from state court. See ECF Nos. #3 , #9 , #10 . However, Plaintiff has argued that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied because the coverage limit of Defendant's insurance policy is $25,000, and although Defendant correctly notes that the damages alleged in Plaintiff's complaint exceed that amount and, therefore, provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction, Defendant has offered to consent to the remand of this case if Plaintiff agrees in writing to limit the damages he seeks to $25,000. The parties shall file a joint letter on or before May 26, 2023, indicating whether they jointly agree to the Court's remanding this case based on Plaintiff's stipulation to seek an amount of damages less than the amount-in-controversy requirement. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 5/22/2023. (BH)
|
| Filing 10 Letter in response to electronic order of May 5, 2023 and Plaintiff's counsel's letter of May 12, 2023 by Joel Wallace (Brophy, Patrick) |
| Filing 9 Letter by Wanda Johnson (Pager, William) |
|
ORDER: Plaintiff shall file a letter no longer than three pages on or before May 12, 2023, explaining Plaintiff's position regarding whether this case was properly removed from state court. Plaintiff's letter must address not only whether the Court has diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the claims at issue in this case, but also whether Defendant complied with the procedural requirements for removal, including the requirements in 28 U.S.C. 1446. Defendant may file a responsive letter no longer than three pages on or before May 19, 2023.If Plaintiff's letter indicates that removal was improper, the Court will likely take under consideration whether to remand this case based solely on the parties' letters, without affording Defendant the opportunity further to brief the issue, regardless of whether Defendant files a responsive letter. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 5/5/2023. (BH)
|
|
Filing 8
SCHEDULING ORDER: Counsel for all parties are directed to file on the docket a joint letter describing the case and a completed civil case management plan by June 6, 2023, as further described in the attached mandatory requirements. The parties' joint letter shall include a description of any discovery that has already been conducted in state court prior to Defendant's removal of this case.Requests for adjournment of the deadline for these submissions will be considered only if made in writing and otherwise in accordance with Section I.D of the Court's Individual Practices. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 5/2/2023. (BH)
|
| Filing 7 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
| Filing 6 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 Assigned to Judge Hector Gonzalez. 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 5 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Wanda Johnson (Pager, William) |
| Filing 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Joel Wallace (Brophy, Patrick) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Joel Wallace (re-filed per clerk's instruction; fee paid at clerk's window on 4/21/23) from Supreme Court - Kings County, NY, case number 506268/2023. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Summons and Complaint, #3 Exhibit Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint, #4 Exhibit Answer) (Brophy, Patrick) |
| Incorrect Case/Document/Entry Information.Please File the Notice of Removal using the correct event NOTICE OF REMOVAL under Notices. NOTICE In Re: Rule 7.1 Statement Should be filed as a separated docket entry not as an attachment to the Notice of Removal #1 . Please correctly file the Rule 7.1 Statement. This event can be found under the event Discovery Documents-DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTED PARTIES.(KD) |
| Filing 2 FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 100006390 (SR) |
| Filing 1 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Joel Wallace. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Ex A. Summons and Complaint, #3 Exhibit Ex B. Affidavit of Service, #4 Exhibit Ex C. Rule 7.1 Statement, #5 Exhibit Ex D. Answer) (Brophy, Patrick) |
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: Johnson v. Wallace | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Wanda Johnson | |
| Represented By: | William Pager |
| 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: Joel Wallace | |
| Represented By: | Patrick Walsh Brophy |
| 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.
