Murphy v. Starbucks Corporation
Michael A. Murphy |
Starbucks Corporation doing business as Starbucks Coffee Company |
2:2023cv02186 |
March 21, 2023 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Pamela K Chen |
Lee G Dunst |
P.I.: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 9 NOTICE of Consent to Change Attorney by Ted J. Tanenbaum (Tanenbaum, Ted) |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Ted J. Tanenbaum on behalf of Michael A. Murphy (aty to be noticed) (Tanenbaum, Ted) |
ELECTRONIC SCHEDULING ORDER: Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst will hold the initial conference on 6/15/2023 at 11:45 AM in Courtroom 830 of the U.S. District Court E.D.N.Y. Long Island Courthouse, located at 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York. The parties are directed to follow Judge Dunst's Individual Practice Rules, which are available on the Court's website, and submit a joint Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order by 6/8/2023 pursuant to Judge Dunst's Individual Practice Rule IV.A.1. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst on 3/27/2023. (CB) |
Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Starbucks Corporation for Individual Rules of District Judge and Magistrate Judge (Tompkins, George) |
Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Starbucks Corporation Re Notice of Removal to State Court and Plaintiff's Counsel 28 U.S.C. 1446(d) (Tompkins, George) |
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. (LJ) |
Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/24/2023: #1 Additional Corrections) (LJ). |
Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen and Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst. 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. (LJ) |
ORDER: Having reviewed Defendant's #1 Notice of Removal, the Court finds that Defendant has established jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 to remove this case to federal court because the parties are citizens of different states, and because the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, as evidenced by Plaintiff's February 15, 2023 demand for at least $1 million in damages. See Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2010). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447, Plaintiff has until 4/20/2023 to move to remand this case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/24/2023. (SK) |
Filing 3 Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #2 Corporate Disclosure Statement, #1 Notice of Removal, by Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company (Tompkins, George) |
Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company (Tompkins, George) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company from Supreme Nassau, case number 616287/2022. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-16518153) Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit Starbucks Answer to the Complaint, #3 Exhibit CPLR 3017 Demand, #4 Exhibit Plaintiff's Bill of Particulars, #5 Exhibit Reply to Demand for Total Damages, #6 Exhibit Request for Preliminary Conference) (Tompkins, George) Modified on 3/24/2023 (LJ). |
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
Search for this case: Murphy v. Starbucks Corporation | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Michael A. Murphy | |
Represented By: | Andrew B. Siben |
Represented By: | Ted J. Tanenbaum |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Starbucks Corporation doing business as Starbucks Coffee Company | |
Represented By: | George N. Tompkins, III |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.