UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X : PAULA K. MARTINEZ, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23 Civ. 9847 (LGS) -against- : : ORDER ARROW LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on November 7, 2023, and removed this action from state court pursuant to the Court’s diversity jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.”

(a)(1); WHEREAS, diversity jurisdiction requires that “all of the adverse parties in a suit . . . be completely diverse with regard to citizenship.” Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship,

, 51 (2d Cir. 2000);1 WHEREAS, “the party invoking federal jurisdiction” bears the burden of “establish[ing] the existence of diversity jurisdiction.” Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2019); WHEREAS, a limited liability company (“LLC”) generally takes the citizenship of each of its members for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC,

1 Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, alterations, emphases, footnotes and citations are omitted.

(2d Cir. 2016); Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch vy. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt., LLC,

(2d Cir. 2012); WHEREAS, complete diversity is not established where the notice of removal fails to allege the citizenship of each member of a party LLC. See Platinum-Montaur Life Scis.,

; WHEREAS, it is within the Court’s discretion to sua sponte remand a case to state court where the party seeking removal has “failed to allege complete diversity of citizenship.” Jd. at 618; Hines v. Azoth Inv. SPC Ltd., No. 21 Civ. 10309,

, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2022) (sua sponte remanding case to state court where notice of removal failed to establish complete diversity); WHEREAS, a district court may sua sponte remand a case for a procedural defect within thirty days of the filing of the Notice of Removal. See Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth.,

(2d Cir. 2006); WHEREAS, Defendants’ Notice of Removal is procedurally defective. Defendants’ Notice of Removal and accompanying Petition for Removal fail to plead facts sufficient to establish the citizenship of each member of Defendant Arrow Logistics, LLC. It is hereby ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to state court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case and to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, pursuant to

(c). Dated: November 17, 2023 □ New York, New York ] LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE