Sonix Carriers Inc. v. SVES LLC et al
| SONIX CARRIERS INC. |
| SVES LLC, SVES Apparel LLC and SVES Go LLC |
| 1:2023cv07741 |
| August 31, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Jennifer H Rearden |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 df Diversity-Contract Default |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 21, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 26
ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal by formal motion #25 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. Application denied without prejudice to renewal upon further explaining the basis for requesting a sur-reply, including specifying the new "factual issues raised in Defendant's reply" as well as any applicable supporting authorities. Any renewed application shall be submitted by no later than November 1, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 25. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden on 10/27/2023) (tg)
|
|
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 11/1/2023. (tg)
|
|
Filing 25
FIRST LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Brief Sur-Reply addressed to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden from Yair Bruck dated 10/26/2023. Document filed by Sonix Carriers Inc...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 24
REPLY to Response to Motion re: #14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter. Declaration of Service. Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC..(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 23
REPLY to Response to Motion re: #14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter. Reply Declaration of Salomon Murciano. Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Registration for child, #2 Exhibit Synagogue statement, #3 Exhibit Car insurance document).(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 22
REPLY to Response to Motion re: #14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter. Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law. Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC..(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 21
DECLARATION of Joseph Gutman in Opposition re: #19 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden from Yair Bruck dated 10/11/2023., #14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter.. Document filed by Sonix Carriers Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A copy of the court docket for Salomon Murciano v. Deborah Murciano, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 800502/2019, which was commenced on December 6, 2019, #2 Exhibit Copy of the deed to the apartment dated October 24, 2019 showing the purchasing entity, #3 Exhibit Printout from the Florida Division of Corporations showing Mr. Murciano as the registered owner of said company, #4 Exhibit Printout evidencing that on March 22, 2019 Mr. Murciano changed his voter registration to Florida, #5 Exhibit Picture of Mr. Murciano together with Florida Governor DeSantis).(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER: On September 27, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff has 21 days after the service of a motion under Rule 12(b) to amend the complaint once as of right. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by October 18, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 1.D of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, any amended complaint should be filed with a redline showing all differences between the original and revised filing. Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the Complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff amends, by three weeks after the amended complaint is filed, Defendants shall file (1) an answer, (2) a new motion to dismiss, or (3) a letter stating that they rely on the previously filed motion to dismiss. If Defendants file an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the previously filed motion to dismiss as moot. If Defendants file a new motion to dismiss, any opposition shall be filed within 14 days, and any reply shall be filed within seven days of any opposition. If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the motion to dismiss by October 18, 2023. Defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed by October 25, 2023. SO ORDERED., ( Amended Pleadings due by 10/18/2023., Responses due by 10/18/2023, Replies due by 10/25/2023.) (Signed by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden on 10/11/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing 19
LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden from Yair Bruck dated 10/11/2023. Document filed by Sonix Carriers Inc...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 18
RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC..(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 17
DECLARATION of Sean Collier, Esq. in Support re: #14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter.. Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC..(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 16
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter. . Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC..(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 15
DECLARATION of Salomon Murciano in Support re: #14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter.. Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC..(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 14
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter. Document filed by SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC. Responses due by 10/11/2023 (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order dismissing Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).(Collier, Sean)
|
|
Filing 13
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Gilbert Alan Lazarus on behalf of SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC..(Lazarus, Gilbert)
|
|
Filing 12
SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. SVES Go LLC served on 9/6/2023, answer due 9/27/2023. Service was accepted by Nancy Dougherty Authorized Agent. Document filed by Sonix Carriers Inc...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 11
SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. SVES Apparel LLC served on 9/6/2023, answer due 9/27/2023. Service was accepted by Nancy Dougherty Authorized Agent. Document filed by Sonix Carriers Inc...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 10
SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. SVES LLC served on 9/6/2023, answer due 9/27/2023. Service was accepted by Nancy Dougherty Authorized Agent. Document filed by Sonix Carriers Inc...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 9
COMPLAINT against SVES Apparel LLC, SVES Go LLC, SVES LLC. Document filed by Sonix Carriers Inc...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 8
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to SVES Go LLC..(gp)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to SVES Apparel LLC..(gp)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to SVES LLC..(gp)
|
|
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice to attorney Yair Bruck. The party information for the following party/parties has been modified: SONIX CARRIERS INC. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the following reason/reasons: party name was entered in all caps. (gp)
|
|
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING. Notice to Attorney Yair Bruck to RE-FILE Document No. #1 Complaint,. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the All Defendant radio button was selected. Re-file the pleading using the event type Complaint found under the event list Complaints and Other Initiating Documents - attach the correct signed PDF - select the individually named filer/filers - select the individually named party/parties the pleading is against. (gp)
|
|
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL. CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Yair Bruck. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Dollar Demand $1,623,837,000;. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the Dollar Demand has been modified to $1,624,000.00. (gp)
|
|
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang 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. (gp)
|
|
CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden. 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..(gp)
|
|
Case Designated ECF. (gp)
|
|
Filing 5
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 4
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to SVES Go LLC, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by SONIX CARRIERS INC...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 3
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to SVES Apparel LLC, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by SONIX CARRIERS INC...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 2
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to SVES LLC, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by SONIX CARRIERS INC...(Bruck, Yair)
|
|
Filing 1
FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY FILED AGAINST ERROR COMPLAINT against All Defendants. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-28221916)Document filed by SONIX CARRIERS INC...(Bruck, Yair) Modified on 9/1/2023 (gp).
|
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
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.
