Acosta v. Delivery By J&S LLC et al
| Cesar G. Acosta |
| Delivery By J&S LLC, Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia and Erick Jimenez Grijalva |
| 1:2023cv03554 |
| May 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Sanket J Bulsara |
| Eric N Vitaliano |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.) |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (Sohnen, Daniel) |
Filing 11
SCHEDULING ORDER: An telephonic-initial conference will take place on 7/21/2023 at 2:30 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 conference. Counsel are directed to complete the attached Rule 26(f) Report and electronically file same with the Court no later than 7/18/2023. 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. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other of the date and time of this telephonic initial conference.So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/13/2023. (EM)
|
| Filing 10 Letter in response to Your Honor's order to show cause by Delivery By J&S LLC, Erick Jimenez Grijalva (Sohnen, Daniel) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE by Delivery By J&S LLC, Erick Jimenez Grijalva re #2 Disclosure of Interested Parties Amended (Sohnen, Daniel) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE by Delivery By J&S LLC, Erick Jimenez Grijalva re #1 Notice of Removal, Amended (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A - summons and complaint) (Sohnen, Daniel) |
| Email Notification Test - DO NOT REPLY (EM) |
| Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia identifying Corporate Parent Enterprise Holdings, Inc,, Other Affiliate Ean Holdings, LLC for Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia. (Khrinenko, Peter) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint by Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia. (Khrinenko, Peter) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Defendants Delivery By J&S LLC ("Delivery") and Erick Jimenez Grijalva ("Grijalva") removed this case to federal court on May 11, 2023, asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. (Petition for Removal, Dkt. No. 1 at 1). "The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332 bears the burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete." Advani Enters., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1998). Section 1332(a) requires complete diversity among the plaintiffs and defendants for a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. Herrick Co. v. SCS Comm'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 diversity purposes, a corporation is considered a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business." Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 2012); see also 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1). In addition, "a limited liability company takes the citizenship of each of its members." Bayerische Landesbank, 692 F.3d at 49. And "[f]or 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).Defendants Delivery and Grijalva allege diversity because Plaintiff is a resident of New York, Defendant Delivery is a company organized in New Jersey, Defendant Grijalva is a resident of New Jersey, and Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia ("Enterprise Leasing") is a company organized in Oklahoma. (Petition for Removal at 1). The Petition for Removal does not disclose the domicile of Plaintiff or Defendant Grijalva, and it does not disclose Defendant Delivery's members or their citizenships for the purposes of diversity. It also does not disclose whether Defendant Enterprise Leasing is a corporation (in which case the principal place of business must be asserted), or an LLC (in which case the citizenship of each of the LLC's members must be asserted). As a result, the Court is unable to conclude whether it possesses diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).The Court's inability to ascertain subject matter jurisdiction is compounded by the fact that both sides failed to file a compliant Rule 7.1 disclosure statement which would otherwise provide information concerning the citizenship in a diversity case. Specifically, Delivery and Grijalva's disclosure statement #2 only includes information about corporate relationships, and nothing about diversity of citizenship, which is what the newly amended Rule 7.1 requires where the alleged subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. Counsel for both sides are directed to review the newly amended Rule 7.1, which became effective on December 1, 2022, and file compliant statements by 6/9/2023.Finally, it is not clear that the procedural requirements of the removal statute have been satisfied. "'[A]ll defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action[,]' the so-called rule of unanimity." Taylor v. Medtronic, Inc., 15 F.4th 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(2)(A)). Here, Defendants Delivery and Grijalva do not indicate in their Petition for Removal whether Defendant Enterprise Leasing has been served or if it consents to removal.By 6/9/2023, Defendants Delivery and Grijalva shall show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, all parties must file compliant Rule 7.1 disclosure statements by 6/9/2023. Failure to respond to this Order will result in the action being remanded. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 5/26/2023. (IS)
|
| 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 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. (KD) |
| Filing 3 ANSWER to Complaint by Delivery By J&S LLC, Erick Jimenez Grijalva. (Sohnen, Daniel) |
| Filing 2 DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by Erick Jimenez Grijalva, Delivery By J&S LLC. (Sohnen, Daniel) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Delivery By J&S LLC, Erick Jimenez Grijalva from Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, case number 703985/2023. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-16690900) (Attachments: #1 Appendix Exhibit A - summons and complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Sohnen, Daniel) |
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.
