Luce, Jr. et al v. AON Service Corporation et al
| Elton Luce, Jr. and Mary Luce |
| Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. and AON Service Corporation doing business as AON Administrative Service |
| 2:2024cv08195 |
| November 26, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Ann M Donnelly |
| James M Wicks |
| Insurance |
| 12 U.S.C. ยง 635 Breach of Insurance Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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 (LJ) |
| Filing 2 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (SDM) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/26/2024: #1 Additional Corrections) (LJ). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filing fee $ 405, receipt number ANYEDC-18530850 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -yes,, filed by Elton Luce, Mary Luce. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Wolf, Darren) |
ORDER: Unless there is a more specific statute regarding venue, Courts resort to 28 U.S.C. 1391 in determining whether venue is "improper." Venue is proper if: (1) at least one defendant resides in the district and all the defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located; (2) a "substantial part" of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district; or (3) a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and "there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). Here, the Complaint avers that venue is proper "because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred in Nassau County, New York." (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The Complaint further alleges that venue is proper "because defendant, Aon Affinity, resides in the Eastern District of New York." (Id.) "Aon Affinity," however, is not a named defendant and does not otherwise appear anywhere in the body of the Complaint. "In assessing venue based on Section 1391(b)(2), a two-part inquiry is appropriate." Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine, 428 F.3d 408, 432 (2d Cir. 2005). First, the court "identif[ies] the nature of the claims and the acts or omissions that the plaintiff alleges give rise to those claims." Id. "Second, the court should determine whether a substantial part of those acts or omissions occurred in the district where the suit was filed, that is, whether 'significant events or omissions material to [those] claim[s]... have occurred in the district in question.'" Id. (quoting Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2005) (alterations retained)). "When material acts or omissions within the forum bear a close nexus to the claims, they are properly deemed 'significant' and, thus, 'substantial.'" Id. at 433 (quoting Kim v. Lee, 576 F. Supp.3d 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)). The Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations to determine whether venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York. Accordingly, on or before December 6, 2024, Plaintiff shall show cause as to why the undersigned should not recommend that this action be dismissed or alternatively transferred for improper venue. See Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir. 1999) (sua sponte dismissals for improper venue are appropriate where: (1) neither the parties nor the activities alleged have any relation to the district in which the case is filed or (2) where all discernible factual allegations involve events occurring outside the district). So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 11/26/2024. (DN)
|
| Case Assigned to Judge Ann M. Donnelly 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. (LJ) |
| A summons was not issued for the following reason: No summons provided, please submit summons. The event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (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
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.
