Hill v. Ault et al
| Shana Hill |
| Leyland Ault and Peninsula Trucking, Inc. |
| 1:2024cv00523 |
| January 24, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Eric R Komitee |
| Taryn A Merkl |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
SCHEDULING ORDER: A telephonic Initial Conference will be held on 4/3/2024 at 2:45PM before Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl. The parties are directed to call the toll-free number (877) 336-1839. The access code is 3914302. The parties shall dial in five (5) minutes before the scheduled conference. Counsel are directed to complete the attached Case Management Worksheet and electronically file same with the Court no later than 3/26/2024. Should the parties wish to adopt a plan for discovery different from the structure in the worksheet, they may do so only if they file a letter explaining why such a plan is appropriate in this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 2/14/2024.
|
|
ORDER: Defendants filed discovery material on ECF (ECF No. 8-9) Reminder: Discovery materials unrelated to pending disputes or motions before this Court are not to be filed on ECF. The Clerk's Office is instructed to take down document 8 and 9. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 2/13/2024. (RC)
|
| Filing 10 Letter by Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc. (Rolle, Lisa) |
| Filing 9 STRICKEN As per Magistrate Judge Merkl's Order on 2/13/2024 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc.. (Rolle, Lisa) Modified on 2/13/2024 (RC). |
| Filing 8 STRICKEN As per Magistrate Judge Merkl's Order on 2/13/2024 INTERROGATORIES Propounded by Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc. (Rolle, Lisa) Modified on 2/13/2024 (RC). |
| Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc. (Rolle, Lisa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa M. Rolle on behalf of Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc. (notification declined or already on case) (Rolle, Lisa) |
| Filing 5 Verified ANSWER to Complaint by Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc.. (Rolle, Lisa) |
|
ORDER. In removal actions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2) requires the defendant to file an answer 21 days after service of the initial pleading or 7 days after the notice of removal was filed, whichever is longer. Defendants filed their notice of removal in this case on 1/24/2024, but have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, which was originally filed in state court on 12/20/2023, and was served on Defendants on 12/26/2023. Defendants are hereby directed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this case on or before 2/13/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 2/6/2024. (ALG)
|
|
ORDER: Defendants assert diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. #1 , 13-17.) As to the amount in controversy requirement, Defendants note that "it is a logical and reasonable conclusion that Plaintiff is asserting a claim that exceeds $75,000 based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint." The Complaint is silent, however, as to the details of Plaintiff's injuries or damages (consistent with New York State pleading practices). It is well established that "[t]o remove a case based on diversity jurisdiction, the diverse defendant must aver that all of the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been met." Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347, 356 (2d Cir. 2011). Here, although Defendants assert that the requirements have been met, there is no particularity to their assertion. This is inadequate because "[a]ny doubts regarding the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand, and federal courts construe the removal statute narrowly." Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 676 F. Supp. 2d 285, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). In addition, in diversity cases, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 requires parties or intervenors to file a disclosure statement "(A) when the action is filed in or removed to federal court, and (B) when any later event occurs that could affect the court's jurisdiction under 1332(a)." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1; see also United States Courts, Current Rules of Practice & Procedure, https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure. Under Rule 7.1(a)(2), the disclosure "statement must name -- and identify the citizenship of -- every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor." See 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) ("[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business...."). By 2/8/2024, Defendants are directed to file a disclosure statement under Rule 7.1 and a supplemental filing providing any additional facts or legal authority for removal. Defendant and Plaintiff are also respectfully encouraged to confer and, if appropriate, may represent to the Court whether they are in agreement that the minimum amount in controversy is satisfied so as to establish federal diversity jurisdiction. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 1/26/2024. (ALG)
|
| Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
| 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 (KD) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. by Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc. (Rolle, Lisa) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Leyland Ault, Peninsula Trucking, Inc. from Kings County, case number 537276/2023. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANYEDC-17496297) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Summons & Complaint) (Rolle, Lisa) |
| 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 R. Komitee and Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl. 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) |
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.
