JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Zulli et al
| JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association |
| Bryan Zulli, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and John Doe # 1 through John Doe # 10 |
| 2:2023cv03521 |
| May 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Joan M Azrack |
| Anne Y Shields |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 31, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Civil Case Terminated. (LC) |
ORDER. Currently before the Court is Defendant Bryan Zulli's response, ECF No. #4 , to the Court's Order to Show Cause why this case should not be remanded to state court based on his untimely removal. Zulli contends that "removal is timely in that the present case is closely related to the new case filed the same day that removal was sought," which the Court interprets as Case No. 23-CV-3519-JMA-AYS. He also argues that removal is timely based on various decisions by the New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and the Appellate Division, Second Department. (Response at 1-3.) Zulli's arguments are meritless. 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1) provides that a notice of removal "shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant" of the initial pleading or summons, "whichever period is shorter." In his response, Zulli entirely fails to address the fact that, as he previously acknowledged in the Notice of Removal, the state court action "was commenced on August 17, 2009," and Zulli was added as a party to the state court action on May 26, 2017. (See ECF No. #1 at 15-17, 24.) Indeed, his response merely confirms that he filed the May 10, 2023 Notice of Removal well outside the statutory 30-day removal period. See JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Caires, 768 F. App'x 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's sua sponte remand based on untimely removal); 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) ("A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded."). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to remand this case to the Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, and to mail a copy of this Order to Defendant Zulli at his address of record. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 5/31/2023. (SP)
|
| Filing 4 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Bryan Zulli. (LF) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by Bryan Zulli, a defendant in a case pending in the Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, under Index No. 32708/2009, captioned as J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, et al., v. Bryan Zulli, et al. (the "State Court Action"). A defendant may remove a suit filed in state court to federal court if certain requirements are satisfied. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) sets out the procedures for removal. BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021) ("To remove a case, a defendant must comply with 28 U.S.C. 1446."). Under these procedures, the notice of removal "shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant" of the initial pleading or summons, "whichever period is shorter." Id. 1446(b)(1). As Zulli acknowledges in the Notice of Removal, the State Court Action "was commenced on August 17, 2009," and Zulli was added as a party to the State Court Action on May 26, 2017. See ECF No. 1 at 15-17, 24. It is therefore abundantly clear that Zulli filed the Notice of Removal well outside the statutory 30-day removal period. Accordingly, Zulli is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this case should not be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, based on his untimely removal. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Caires, 768 F. App'x 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming district court's sua sponte remand based on untimely removal); 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Zulli's response is due by 5/30/2023. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 5/18/2023. (SP)
|
| Filing 3 Notice of Related Cases: 17-cv-387-JMA-AYS and 23-cv-3521-JMA-AYS The Civil Cover Sheet filed in this civil action indicates a related case. (DC) |
| Filing 2 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. (DC) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Bryan Zulli from Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, case number 09-32708. Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No, (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (DC) |
| FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 200001616 (DC) |
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.
