Balarama v. Techmatrix et al
| Vamshi Krishna Masineni Balarama |
| Techmatrix and Raja S. Vendra |
| 2:2021cv00671 |
| November 12, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Jared C Bennett |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
**RESTRICTED DOCUMENT**Summons Issued Electronically as to Raja S. Vendra. Instructions to Counsel:1. Click on the document number.2. If you are prompted for an ECF login, enter your 'Attorney' login to CM/ECF.3. Print the issued summons for service. (nmt)
|
|
Filing 6
**RESTRICTED DOCUMENT**Summons Issued Electronically as to Techmatrix. Instructions to Counsel:1. Click on the document number.2. If you are prompted for an ECF login, enter your 'Attorney' login to CM/ECF.3. Print the issued summons for service. (nmt)
|
|
Filing 5
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by Vamshi Krishna Masineni Balarama. (Holdsworth, David)
|
|
Filing 4
AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand. filed by Vamshi Krishna Masineni Balarama. (Holdsworth, David)
|
|
Filing 3
DOCKET TEXT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff Vamshi Krishna Masineni Balarama filed this action in federal court based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. 1332. The Complaint, however, fails to adequately allege diversity of citizenship. The Complaint alleges only that Plaintiff resided in Utah at all relevant times. The Complaint is entirely void of allegations regarding the citizenship of individual Defendant Raja S. Vendra. Martinez v. Martinez, 62 F. App'x 309, 313 (10th Cir. 2003) ("For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, one is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Domicile, in turn, is the combination of physical presence in a location and an intent to remain there indefinitely."). The Complaint alleges that Defendant TechMatrix is a corporate entity but fails to identify what type of entity and fails to include the required corresponding information necessary to establish Defendant TechMatrix's citizenship for purposes of diversity. Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause why diversity jurisdiction exists in this action. Plaintiff must file a written response to this order to show cause on or before November 24, 2021, containing allegations sufficient to correct the jurisdictional deficiencies. Failure to do so may result in this dismissal of this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on 11/16/2021. (docket text order; no attached document) (aja)
|
|
Filing 2
COMPLAINT against Techmatrix, Raja S. Vendra (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AUTDC-4163498) filed by Vamshi Krishna Masineni Balarama. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Civil Cover Sheet) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett (Holdsworth, David)
|
|
Filing 1
Case has been indexed and assigned to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett. Plaintiff Vamshi Krishna Masineni Balarama is directed to E-File the Complaint and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 402.00 by the end of the business day.NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts #PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (nmt)
|
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 Utah 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.
