Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc. v. The Raw Office, Inc.
| Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc. |
| The Raw Office, Inc. |
| 1:2022cv01176 |
| November 9, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Christian F Hummel |
| Gary L Sharpe |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of New York - That the Clerk transfer this action to the United States District Court for Western District of New York. That the Clerk advise the Clerk of the Western District of New York of the entry of this Order and provide all information necessary for the Clerk of the Western District of New York to electronically-access the documents filed in this action. That the fourteen (14) day waiting period provided for in Local Rule 3.7 is waived. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 12/5/2022. (jel, )
|
| Case transferred electronically to the Western District of New York pursuant to Order of Transfer dated December 5, 2022. (jel, ) |
| Case transferred from New York Northern has been opened in U.S. District Court, Western District of New York as case 1:22-cv-00938, filed 12/05/2022. (see) |
| Filing 10 STATUS REPORT in Response to Order, dated Nov. 22, 2022, by The Raw Office, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Proof of Service)(Schierloh, Christopher) |
| Filing 9 FRCP 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc.. (Wilder, J.) |
| Filing 8 COMPLAINT ; ; For questions about this filing, contact J. Joseph Wilder at 7168536001 or jwilder@wilderandlinneball.com filed by Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc..(Wilder, J.) |
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Raw Office, Inc. re 6 Status Report Order,,,,,,,, (Barnett, Gregory) |
|
Filing 6
TEXT ONLY ORDER - On November 15, 2022, the court ordered defendant The Raw Office, Inc. to show cause why this action should not be remanded to Supreme Court in Erie County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 3.) Raw Office has responded, asserting that plaintiff Sam-Son Distribution, Inc. is incorporated in New York and has its principal place of business in Erie County, New York. (Dkt. No. 5 5-7.) In support of this assertion, Raw Office provides the summons with notice filed by Sam-Son in Supreme Court in Erie County, which states that "[t]he basis of venue [in Erie County] is the location of [Sam-Son]'s principal place of business. (Dkt. No. 5, Attach. 3 at 2.) Additionally, Raw Office attaches a copy of the New York Secretary of State's Entity Information webpage, which identifies Sam-Son as a "Domestic Business Corporation. (Dkt. No. 5, Attach. 2.) The most recent filing assuages the courts concerns with respect to subject matter jurisdiction, and remand is not appropriate on this basis. However, the court has taken note of other potential issues. First, it is not apparent that Raw Office has served Sam-Son with the notice of removal because Raw Office has not provided proof of service. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(d). Second, as the court has been provided only with a copy of the summons with notice filed in Supreme Court in Erie County, it is unknown whether a complaint has been filed in the state action or whether Raw Office has made a demand for the complaint in accordance with N.Y. CPLR 3012(b). Finally, it does not appear as though the Northern District is a proper venue for this action. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). Raw Office is hereby ORDERED to provide the court with a status report addressing the aforementioned issues with supporting documentation, where available, by December 2, 2022. Raw Office is further ORDERED to serve this Text Only Order on Sam-Son and file proof of service with respect thereto as soon as is practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. Issued by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/22/2022. (jel, )
|
| Filing 5 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by The Raw Office, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Ex. A - Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit(s) Ex. B - NYS Sec. of State Webpage for Sam-Son, #3 Exhibit(s) Ex. C - Amended Complaint, #4 Exhibit(s) Ex. D - Answer to Amended Complaint)(Schierloh, Christopher) |
| Filing 4 Plaintiff, The Raw office, Inc. ANSWER to Complaint of Defendant, Sam-Son Distribution Center, First COUNTERCLAIM against Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc. by The Raw Office, Inc..(Schierloh, Christopher) |
|
Filing 3
TEXT ONLY ORDER - On August 22, 2022, plaintiff Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc. commenced an action by summons with notice in New York State Supreme Court in Erie County against defendant The Raw Office, Inc. (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1.) Raw Office, a Canadian corporation, removed the action to this court based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. (Dkt. No. 1.) Raw Office has not met its burden of demonstrating that diversity among the parties exists, and that such diversity is complete. See Herrick Co., Inc. v. SCS Commc'ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2001). To establish domicile, Raw Office asserts that Sam-Son "resides" in New York. (Dkt. No. 1 3(b).) Residence is insufficient to establish domicile for jurisdictional purposes. See Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996). A corporation has the citizenship of the state of incorporation and the state in which it maintains its principal place of business. See LaSpisa v. CitiFinancial Co., No. 19-CV-0228, 2020 WL 2079410, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) (citing Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 88 (2010)). Absent from the notice of removal is any mention of Sam-Sons state of incorporation or principal place of business. (Dkt. No. 1.) Accordingly, Raw Office has not established the existence of complete diversity. Raw Office is hereby ORDERED to show cause, in writing, by November 21, 2022, why this case should not be remanded to Supreme Court in Erie County, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Issued by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/15/2022. (jel, )
|
| Filing 2 FRCP 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by The Raw Office, Inc. (khr) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from NYS Supreme Court- County of Erie, case number 809979/2022 (Filing fee $402 receipt number ANYNDC-6095594) filed by The Raw Office, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Summons with Notice, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(khr) |
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 Northern 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: Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc. v. The Raw Office, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Counter defendant: Sam-Son Distribution Center, Inc. | |
| 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 ] |
| Counter claimant: The Raw Office, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Christopher Schierloh |
| 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.
