Turley et al v. SP Restaurant Holdings LLC et al
| Michael Turley and Andrew Phillips |
| Milkshake LLC and SP Restaurant Holdings LLC |
| 3:2024cv02451 |
| September 27, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Brantley Starr |
| Contract: Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330 Breach of Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 21, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER OF REMAND: The Court agrees and the #4 motion to remand is GRANTED.It is therefore ORDERED that this action is remanded to the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 10/21/2024) (Attachments: #1 Remand Letter) (kcr)
|
| Filing 4 Unopposed MOTION to Remand to State Court 134th Judicial District Court filed by Milkshake LLC, SP Restaurant Holdings LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order of Remand) (Abrams, Barry) |
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Defendants' notice of removal invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction but fails to specifically allege the citizenship of each member of two limited liability companies (LLCs). For diversity purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (5th Cir. 2008). The Court cannot determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, so the Court ORDERS Defendants to file an amended notice of removal by October 7, 2024, that specifically states the citizenship of each of the LLCs' members. Failure to comply will result in dismissal without prejudice due to want of prosecution and violation of Court orders. Further, the Court ORDERS Defendants SP Restaurant Holdings LLC and Milkshake LLC to appoint local counsel, in accordance with Local Rule 83.10, or to file a motion to proceed without local counsel, by October 30, 2024. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 9/30/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 2 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge McKay). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ykp) |
| CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Milkshake LLC, SP Restaurant Holdings LLC. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (See doc #1 for image) (ykp) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Milkshake, LLC, SP Restaurant Holdings, LLC. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-14953122) 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, #3 Exhibit(s) A - State Court Pleadings, #4 Exhibit(s) B - State Court Docket Sheet, #5 Exhibit(s) Corporate Disclosure and Certificate of Interested Persons) (Abrams, Barry) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
