Read v. Marrero
Read v. Marrero
Trial Court Opinion
pba PRP Rs aS □□ | DOCUMENT PoLECTRONICALLY □□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK □ ve ™ Torna □□ eeepc nent ne ee eee eee eeeeeeeX (DATE FILED: 2ZB/27- | KELIN RAFAEL READ, jones feet Plaintiff,
-against- 25-cv-2193 (LAK)
JOSEPH MARRERO, Defendant. oe ew ee eee eee HK
ORDER
LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1332and 1441. The notice of removal fails adequately to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction because, perhaps among other things, it fails adequately to allege: xy The citizenship of one or more natural persons. See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Edwards,
194 U.S. 377(1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp.v. PactfiCorp Capital, Inc.,
87 F.3d 44(2d Cir. 1996). O The citizenship of one or more corporations. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Oo The citizenship of one or more partnerships. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs.,
494 U.S. 195(1990). O The exact nature and citizenship of one or more alleged limited liability companies. See Handlesman v. Bedford Village Green Assocs. L.P.,
213 F.3d 48, 52(2d Cir. 2000). Absent the filing, on or before March 28, 2025 of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, this action will be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2025 /
Lewis A. la United States Distric#Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown