Gomez et al v. Pure Nootropics, LLC
Robert Gomez and Mark Maurer |
Pure Nootropics, LLC |
2:2021cv03366 |
June 15, 2021 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Gary R Brown |
James M Wicks |
Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 9, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Pure Nootropics, LLC. (Skrabanek, John) |
ORDER granting #10 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #10 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer All Defendants. Application is hereby GRANTED, and the time within which to respond to the complaint is extended to and including September 8, 2021. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 8/9/2021. (Wicks, James) |
ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #9 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Defendant's unopposed application to extend the time within which to respond to the complaint is GRANTED, and the time is hereby extended to August 9, 2021. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 7/9/2021. (Wicks, James) |
Filing 9 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Pure Nootropics, LLC. (Skrabanek, John) |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by John Robert Skrabanek on behalf of Pure Nootropics, LLC (aty to be noticed) (Skrabanek, John) |
ORDER re #7 Letter filed by Mark Maurer, Robert Gomez. In light of Plaintiffs' representations set forth in DE 7, amendment of the complaint is not required at this time.Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 6/25/2021.c/ecf (Johnston, Linda) |
Filing 7 Letter Response To Court's Order To Show Cause by Robert Gomez, Mark Maurer (Roberts, Max) |
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re #1 Complaint filed by Mark Maurer, Robert Gomez. This Court has an obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. See Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2006). The complaint does not properly invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, and it is not clear if there is any basis to do so. The complaint alleges that Defendant Pure Nootropics, LLC is "a New Mexico limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico." This says nothing about the citizenship of Pure Nootropics, LLC, for the citizenship of a limited liability company is not the same as that of a corporation. See Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Aladdin Capital Management LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that the defendant limited liability company takes the citizenship of each of its members). The jurisdictional statement set forth in the complaint is inadequate to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Whether any of the members of Pure Nootropics, LLC are individuals, corporations, limited liability companies, or limited partnerships, Plaintiff must plead the identity and citizenship of each one of them, proceeding up the chain of ownership until the citizenship of every individual or corporation with a direct or indirect interest in Pure Nootropics, LLC is alleged. See Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 60 (2d Cir. 2016) (allegation that an LLC "is a citizen of a different state" is deficient "because it contains no allegation as to the identity or citizenship" of the members); see also Avant Capital Partners, LLC v. W108 Development LLC, 387 F. Supp. 3d 320, 322-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[A]n LLC's jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of each of its members as of the date the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those members have members, the citizenship of those members as well"). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by July 1, 2021, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 6/17/2021. (Johnston, Linda) |
Filing 6 Summons Issued as to Pure Nootropics, LLC. (Rodin, Deanna) |
Filing 5 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. (Rodin, Deanna) |
Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly) |
Case Assigned to Judge Gary R. Brown and Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks. 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. (Rodin, Deanna) |
Filing 3 Proposed Summons. Re #1 Complaint by Robert Gomez, Mark Maurer (Roberts, Max) |
Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Complaint by Robert Gomez, Mark Maurer (Roberts, Max) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Pure Nootropics, LLC filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-14566882 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by Robert Gomez, Mark Maurer. (Roberts, Max) |
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.