Moye v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
| Amber Moye |
| Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC, Rasier-NY LLC and Rasier LLC |
| 1:2024cv00054 |
| January 3, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Diane Gujarati |
| Taryn A Merkl |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the stipulated motion for extension of time #6 . The request is granted. Defendants shall file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 1/30/2024. The parties are respectfully reminded that any motion practicemust beinitiatedin accordance withthe Individual Rules of the assigned District Judge. Further, the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, and Defendants' notice of removal fails to allege facts sufficient to support their claim that the amount in controversy is satisfied. "While a [party] need not 'prove the amount in controversy to an absolute certainty,' the [party] 'has the burden of proving that it appears to be a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount." Justino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 21-CV-2130 (PMH), 2021 WL 961764, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021) (quotation marks omitted); see also Ramos v. Golden Touch Transportation of NY Inc., No. 21-CV-5676 (LDH) (TAM), 2022 WL 2467590, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4551567 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022). "[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, and the defendant's notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removing the plaintiff's action from state court." Justino, 2021 WL 961764, at *1 (quotation marks omitted). Moreover, "[i]n this Circuit, a case filed in state court does not become removable 'until the plaintiff serves the defendant with a paper that explicitly specifies the amount of monetary damages sought.'" Henriquez v. NRT Transp. LLC, No. 19-CV-3320 (ARR) (RLM), 2019 WL 3083161, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019) (quoting Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2010)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-CV-3320 (ARR) (RLM), 2019 WL 3081188 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019). Defendants are respectfully directed to file a supplemental submission alleging facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy is satisfied by 1/23/2024, or the parties may file a stipulation agreeing to facts sufficient to establish the amount in controversy by the same date. In the event Plaintiff contests that the amount in controversy is satisfied, Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants' letter by 1/30/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 1/9/2024. (ES)
|
| Filing 6 STIPULATION MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., UBER USA LLC, RASIER LLC AND RASIER-NY LLC TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Rasier LLC, Rasier-NY LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC (Attachments: #1 Declaration E. O'Toole in Support of Stipulation Motion to Extend Time, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Certificate of Service) (O'Toole, Edward) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Jaime M Farrell on behalf of Amber Moye (notification declined or already on case) (Farrell, Jaime) |
| Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (CV) |
| Filing 3 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 (CV) |
| 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. (CV) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Notice of Removal,, by Rasier-NY LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC (O'Toole, Edward) |
| Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet. The Clerk's Office cannot assign this case without a completed Civil Cover Sheet. Please resubmit corrected Civil Cover Sheet. This event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (CV) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Rasier-NY LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC from Supreme Court State of NY Kings County, case number 533570/2023. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANYEDC-17425521) (Attachments: #1 Affidavit in Support E. O'Toole Certification in Support of Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit A in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #3 Exhibit B in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #4 Exhibit C in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #5 Exhibit D in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #6 Exhibit E in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #7 Certificate of Service) (O'Toole, Edward) |
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.
