Geeky-Ants, Inc. v. i.am.plus LLC et al
| Geeky-Ants, Inc. |
| i.am.plus LLC and R. Chandrasekar |
| 1:2023cv09401 |
| December 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Sanket J Bulsara |
| Nicholas G Garaufis |
| Contract: Recovery/Enforcement |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330 Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
SUA SPONTE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated in the attached R&R, the Court respectfully recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within 14 days of receipt of this report. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal any judgment or order entered by the District Court in reliance on this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate[] [judge's] report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate[] [judge's] decision." (quotations omitted)). So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 1/24/2024. (AL)
|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Geeky-Ants, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Shareholder Agreement, #2 Exhibit Share Certificate) (Kaushik, Nitin) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff initiated this action in federal court on December 21, 2023. (Dkt. No. #1 ). Plaintiff alleges this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are diverse. (Compl. dated Dec. 21, 2023 ("Compl."), Dkt. No. 1 para. 8). Section 1332(a)(1) provides that, for a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, the suit must be among "citizens of different States." This is a "complete" diversity requirement; that is, "[d]iversity is not complete if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant." St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Universal Builders Supply, 409 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). "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). Further, that party "must support those allegations with 'competent proof' if a party opposing jurisdiction properly challenges those allegations or if the court sua sponte raises the question." Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 947 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))."For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party's citizenship depends on [her] domicile." Id. at 948. "[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). "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.In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it is a corporation, incorporated in the state of California with its "office" in California. (Compl. para. 4). It alleges that Defendant i.am.plus LLC is a limited liability company (LLC), organized under the laws of California and with its principal place of business in California. (Id. para. 5). It also alleges that the individual Defendant Chandrasekar is a resident of California, and that he is the "sole owner and manager of i.am.plus." (Id. para. 6). Plaintiff provides no further allegations of diversity or citizenship of the parties.Based upon this minimal record, the Court would be forced to conclude that diversity jurisdiction is not present or, at minimum, that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate complete diversity is present. For these reasons, by 1/17/2024, Plaintiff is directed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 1/10/2024. (AL)
|
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to R. Chandrasekar, i.am.plus LLC. (KD) |
| 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 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this 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. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (KD) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis 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 Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Complaint by Geeky-Ants, Inc. (Kaushik, Nitin) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons.Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Complaint by Geeky-Ants, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons Summons for Corporate Defendant, #2 Proposed Summons Summons for Individual Defendant) (Kaushik, Nitin) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs filing fee $ 405, receipt number ANYEDC-17402657 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Geeky-Ants, Inc.. (Kaushik, Nitin) |
| Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet. The Clerk's Office cannot assign this case without a completed 2 Page Form Civil Cover Sheet. Please submit A COMPLETED SECOND PAGE (Not the Instruction Page) Civil Cover Sheet. This event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (KD) |
| Incorrect Case/Document/Entry Information. Please file the Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Proposed Summons and pay the Civil Filing Fee for the following case so that it may be processed. Initial Case Opening Documents Should be Filed At The Time a Case Number is generated! (KD) |
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.
