Chandra v. Lyft, Inc.
| Irwan Chandra |
| Lyft, Inc. |
| 1:2021cv07113 |
| August 23, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Jesse M Furman |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER granting #16 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint: Lyft's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is hereby extended to November 3, 2021. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse)
|
| Filing 16 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Archis A. Parasharami dated October 11, 2021. Document filed by Lyft, Inc...(Parasharami, Archis) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Archis Ashok Parasharami on behalf of Lyft, Inc...(Parasharami, Archis) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER granting #13 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 13. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/9/2021) (tg)
|
| Filing 13 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Matthew D. Ingber dated September 9, 2021. Document filed by Lyft, Inc...(Ingber, Matthew) |
| Filing 12 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Lyft, Inc...(Ingber, Matthew) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Matthew D. Ingber on behalf of Lyft, Inc...(Ingber, Matthew) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Lyft, Inc. answer due 10/20/2021. (tg) |
| Filing 10 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint, Complaint. Lyft, Inc. served on 8/30/2021, answer due 9/20/2021. Service was accepted by Chris Boyd, "Intake Specialist", C T Corporation System, Registered Agent. Document filed by Irwan Chandra., AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Notice of Pretrial Conference and Judge Furman's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases served on Lyft, Inc. on August 30, 2021. Service was accepted by Chris Boyd, "Intake Specialist", C T Corporation System, Registered Agent. Document filed by Irwan Chandra..(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT amending #7 Amended Complaint against Lyft, Inc..Document filed by Irwan Chandra. Related document: #7 Amended Complaint..(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: On August 24, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint remedying certain pleading deficiencies in the original complaint with respect to diversity jurisdiction. See ECF No. 6. On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in which he properly alleges his citizenship. See ECF No. 7, 5. Plaintiff, however, still fails to allege Defendants principal place of business; instead, he merely alleges that Defendant is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California and a citizen of California and Delaware. See id. 7-8 (emphasis added). As the Courts prior Order noted, this does not suffice, as a corporations principal place of business is not necessarily the same as its headquarters. Natl Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. BP Amoco P.L.C., No. 03-CV-200 (GEL), 2003 WL 1618534, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2003) (Lynch, J.); cf. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Melina, 827 F.3d 214, 218 (2d Cir. 2016) (A corporations principal place of business... should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the nerve center. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010))). Accordingly, no later than September 7, 2021, Plaintiff shall file another amended complaint properly alleging Defendants citizenship, including its principal place of business. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 9/7/2021.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/30/2021) (tg)
|
| Filing 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending #1 Complaint against Lyft, Inc..Document filed by Irwan Chandra. Related document: #1 Complaint..(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: Accordingly, no later than August 31, 2021, Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint establishing this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party. ( As further set forth in this Order.) ( Amended Pleadings due by 8/31/2021.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/24/2021) (vfr)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 11/9/2021 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/24/2021) (vfr) |
| Filing 4 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Lyft, Inc...(jgo) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Jurisdiction code 3 (Federal Question);. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the Jurisdiction code has been modified to 4 (Diversity);. (jgo) |
| CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(jgo) |
| Case Designated ECF. (jgo) |
| Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (jgo) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Lyft, Inc., re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Irwan Chandra..(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Lyft, Inc.. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-24972183)Document filed by Irwan Chandra..(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) |
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 Southern 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: Chandra v. Lyft, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Irwan Chandra | |
| Represented By: | Shannon Liss-Riordan |
| 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: Lyft, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Matthew D. Ingber |
| Represented By: | Archis Ashok Parasharami |
| 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.
