Eisenman et al v. Katz et al
| Alan Eisenman and Isaac Begun |
| Lawrence Katz, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, P.C. and The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, Esq., PLLC |
| 2:2023cv02889 |
| April 18, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Arlene R Lindsay |
| Nina R Morrison |
| Stockholders Suits |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Letter in Reply to Plaintiffs' Response [ECF 10] regarding the Court's OSC by Lawrence Katz, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, Esq., PLLC, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, P.C. (Huebner, Levi) |
ORDER granting Defendants' #11 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. Defendants shall so file on or before May 24, 2023. Ordered by Judge Nina R. Morrison on 5/21/2023. (BC)
|
| Filing 11 Letter MOTION for Leave to File Document in response to the Plaintiffs' Reply [ECF 10] which rasies new arguments by Lawrence Katz, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, Esq., PLLC, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, P.C.. (Huebner, Levi) |
| Filing 10 Letter in Reply to Defendants' Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause by Isaac Begun, Alan Eisenman (Blumenthal, Elliot) |
|
ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' #9 response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. If Plaintiffs wish to reply, they shall so file on or before May 19, 2023. Ordered by Judge Nina R. Morrison on 5/16/2023. (BC)
|
| Filing 9 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Regarding the Court's OSC filed by All Defendants. (Huebner, Levi) |
| Filing 8 Letter regarding Defendants' request for pre-motion conference by Isaac Begun, Alan Eisenman (Blumenthal, Elliot) |
| Filing 7 Letter MOTION for pre motion conference regading Defendants' Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss by Lawrence Katz, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, Esq., PLLC, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, P.C.. (Huebner, Levi) |
|
ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' extension motion #5 and Plaintiffs' response #6 . Defendants' motion is granted. Defendants shall respond to the Court's order to show cause on or before May 15, 2023. However, in light of Plaintiff's letter, defense counsel is reminded of its obligation to timely confer with opposing counsel regarding consent to a particular motion, and further extension requests will not be considered absent such a showing. Ordered by Judge Nina R. Morrison on 5/11/2023. (BC)
|
| Filing 6 Letter in Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to the Court's OSC dated May 1, 2023 by Isaac Begun, Alan Eisenman (Blumenthal, Elliot) |
| Filing 5 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to the Court's OSC dated May 1, 2023 by Lawrence Katz, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, Esq., PLLC, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, P.C.. (Huebner, Levi) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. On or before May 11, 2023, Defendants shall show cause as to why removal to this Court was proper. The Court sees a potential procedural deficiency, and potential substantive deficiency, with Defendants' Notice of Removal. First, as a procedural matter, an action may be removed within 30 days of either "the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based" or "after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant." 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1). Generally, a defendant's 30-day removal window begins to run on the day that the basis for removability is, for the first time, "reasonably ascertainable" from a given filing. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 706 F. Supp. 2d 380, 389 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). If, as here, a Notice and Summons is served on a defendant prior to the Complaint, the inquiry for timeliness purposes is whether the Notice of Summons informed the defendant of the basis of removability, or if that information was only available for the first time in the Complaint. Id. (collecting cases).Defendants removed this action on April 18, 2023. Plaintiffs served a Notice and Summons on all defendants on March 3, 2023, ECF 1-2 at 1-9, but did not serve the Complaint on Defendants until March 29, 2023, see ECF 1-1. In their Notice of Removal, Defendants cite only a single sentence from the Complaint to support their assertion that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case, noting that this is an action "relating to a raise of capital... for a business entity known as Cardis... and all investments... were made through Katz." ECF 1 at 2 (citing Complaint at para. 9). However, the Notice and Summons includes nearly identical language, stating that this is an action "relating to a raise of capital... for a business entity known as Cardis." ECF No. 2-2 at 2. The Court is therefore concerned that Defendants' removal may have been untimely.Second, as a substantive matter, Defendants assert that removal to this Court is appropriate both under the complete preemption doctrine and under Grable and its progeny. ECF 1 at 2-3. However, in light of Plaintiff's complaint, it is not immediately clear to the Court why either of these doctrines would apply to this action.Defendants shall therefore file a supplemental brief on or before May 11, 2023 explaining to the Court (1) why removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1), in light of the fact that Defendants' asserted basis for removability may have been made apparent to Defendants when they were served with the Notice and Summons on March 3, 2023, i.e., more than 30 days before they removed this action to federal court, and (2) why federal question jurisdiction exists in this case. Ordered by Judge Nina R. Morrison on 5/1/2023. (BC)
|
|
ORDER granting #4 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The time for Defendants to answer, move against or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended until May 12, 2023. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 4/21/2023. (BJ)
|
| Filing 4 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay by Lawrence Katz, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, Esq., PLLC, The Law Office of Lawrence Katz, P.C.. (Huebner, Levi) |
| Filing 3 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) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Nina R. Morrison and Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. 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) |
| Filing 2 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (SR) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/20/2023: #1 Additional Corrections) (LJ). |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by All Defendants from Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, case number Index No. 615418/2022. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-16612455) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - State Docket, #3 Exhibit C - Docket Printout, #4 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Huebner, Levi) |
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.
