Lee v. Hawley et al
| Gladys Lee |
| Joseph Hawley and Werner Enterprises Inc |
| 3:2024cv00716 |
| March 26, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Torts/Pers Inj: Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Amended Notice of Removal (Karp, Daniel) Docket text modified on 3/26/2024 (twd). |
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the Court is Defendant Joseph Hawley's Notice of Removal. Doc. No. 1. Mr. Hawley invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction as the basis for his removal. Id. at 2; 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), 1441(a). Accordingly, Mr. Hawley must "distinctly and affirmatively" allege the citizenship of each party so that the Court can determine whether the citizenship of each plaintiff differs from the citizenship of each defendant. Getty Oil Corp., Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Having reviewed Mr. Hawley's Notice of Removal under its obligation to assess subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001), the Court concludes that Mr. Hawley has not sufficiently alleged Defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc.'s ("Werner Enterprises") citizenship. Although Mr. Hawley alleges that Werner Enterprises is a Nebraska corporation and therefore a Nebraska citizen, Werner Enterprises is also a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010). Mr. Hawley has not alleged where that principal place of business is.Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Mr. Hawley to amend his Notice of Removal to properly allege Werner Enterprises' citizenship no later than April 9, 2024. Failure to timely comply with this order WILL RESULT in a remand of this case without further notice. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/26/2024) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/26/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Involved Attorneys filed by Joseph Hawley (Karp, Daniel) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Index of Pleadings of State Court Documents filed by Joseph Hawley (Karp, Daniel) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Joseph Hawley. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Karp, Daniel) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by Joseph Hawley. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-14490843) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 Cover Sheet Supplement) (Karp, Daniel) |
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 Texas 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
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.
