Benihana of Tokyo, LLC v. Angelo, Gordon & Co.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.
- RBG Management Corp. v. Village Super Market, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Woolf v. Precision Technologies LLC (District Court, W.D. New York 2024)
- Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Netherlands Insurance Company (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Richmond Hospitality LLC v. Shaughnessy Capital LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2025)
- Cockburn Farm LLC v. Neville (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Ram Distribution Group LLC v. Joseph Gunnar & Co. LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2023)
- Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. AMCK Aviation Holdings Ireland Limited (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Barker v. The Bancorp, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
- Jordan's Ladder Legal Placements, LLC v. Major, Lindsey & Africa, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
- Naber v. First American Title Insurance Agency, Inc. (District Court, W.D. New York 2022)
- Orange County Transit, LLC v. Board of Education of Valley Central School Distri (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Ram Distribution Group LLC v. Joseph Gunnar & Co. LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Pontius Ebel v. G/O Media, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Sandra Quintanilla v. WW International, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Hudson EFT, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Lee v. Ahne (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- St. Christopher's, Inc. v. Forgione (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
. The district court found that Appellee Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P. (“AGC”) had been fraudulently-joined as a defendant in the action to defeat diversity jurisdiction, denied Appellant’s motion to remand this case to New York state court, and dismissed the case in its entirety. Appellant argues the ease should have been remanded. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, which we recite here only to the extent necessary to explain our reasoning.
We examine a district court’s decision on a motion to remand de novo. Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Res., 593 F.3d 209, 214 (2d Cir. 2010).
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between “citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[E]ach plaintiffs citizenship must be different from the citizenship of each defendant” for the district court to have diversity jurisdiction. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 302 (2d Cir. 2004).
It is well established in this Circuit that “a plaintiff may not defeat a federal court’s diversity jurisdiction and a defendant’s right of removal by merely joining as [a] defendant! ] [a] partly] with no real connection with the controversy.” Pampillonia v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 138 F.3d 459, 460-61 (2d Cir. 1998). Under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder, courts overlook the presence of a non-diverse defendant if “there is no possibility, based on the pleadings, that [the] plaintiff can state a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant in state court.” Id. at 461. “The defendant seeking removal bears a heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder” by clear and convincing evidence. Id.
Here, Appellant claims tortious interference with contract against AGC. Appellant’s complaint itself, however, pleads the elements of the affirmative defense of economic interest under New York law. See White Plains Coat & Apron Co. v. Cintas Corp., 8 N.Y.3d 422, 835 N.Y.S.2d 530, 867 N.E.2d 381, 383-84 (2007); Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744, 642 N.Y.S.2d 583, 665 N.E.2d 153, 154 (1996). It is thus legally impossible for Appellant to assert its claim against AGC in state court.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.