Case Activity (16259)

1. Order | Filed: September 03, 2026 | Entered: September 03, 2026 Watson v. TH Tarrytown LLC et al

   P.I.: Other | New York Eastern

   Order to Show Cause

   ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Court is in receipt of Defendants' notice of removal 2 , filed on 9/2/2026, seeking to remove this case, which was filed in Supreme Court, Queens County on 7/31/2026 and which was "allegedly served upon State of New York, Secretary of State," but Defendants' notice of removal does not allege on what date it was served upon them. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, "[t]he notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based."

   Defendants' notice of removal asserts diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, Defendants state that Plaintiff seeks "to recover damages, upon information and belief, in excess of $75,000 against Defendants," on the basis of Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, which does not allege a specific dollar amount in controversy. Notice of Removal, ECF 2, ¶¶ 1, 3 (quoting Compl., ECF 2-1, ¶ 78). "The Supreme Court has held that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of establishing the existence of the jurisdictional amount in controversy." Lupo v. Human Affairs Int'l, Inc. , 28 F.3d 269, 273 (2d Cir. 1994); Villafana v. So, No. 13-CV-180 (KNF), 2013 WL 2367792, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2013) (quotation marks omitted). "While a [party] need not 'prove the amount in controversy to an absolute certainty,' the [party] 'has the burden of proving that it appears to be a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount.'" Justino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 21-CV-2130 (PMH), 2021 WL 961764, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021) (quoting Lupo, 28 F.3d at 273); see also Ramos v. Golden Touch Transportation of NY Inc., No. 21-CV-5676 (LDH) (TAM), 2022 WL 2467590, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4551567 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022). "[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, and the defendants' notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removing the plaintiff's action from state court." Justino, 2021 WL 961764, at *1 (quotation marks omitted). As a general rule, "[i]n this Circuit, a case filed in state court does not become removable 'until the plaintiff serves the defendant with a paper that explicitly specifies the amount of monetary damages sought.'" Henriquez v. NRT Transp. LLC, No. 19-CV-3320 (ARR) (RLM), 2019 WL 3083161, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019) (quoting Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2010)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-CV-3320 (ARR) (RLM), 2019 WL 3081188 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019). Here, the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, and Defendant's notice of removal fails to allege facts sufficient to support their claim that the amount in controversy is satisfied.

   In addition, for diversity jurisdiction to exist, the parties must be completely diverse, meaning that all plaintiffs must be citizens of different states from all defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Citizenship must be "distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record." Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Cap., Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted); see Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 75 (2d Cir. 2019). The citizenship of a LLC for diversity purposes is the citizenship of each of its members. See Bayerische Landesbank v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012). "In pleading an LLC's citizenship, the identity and citizenship of each member has to be specifically alleged... [meaning] a plaintiff must allege the identity and citizenship of [an LLC's] members, proceeding up the chain of ownership until it has alleged the identity and citizenship of every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest in the LLC." United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. M Remodeling Corp., 444 F. Supp. 3d 408, 410 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (emphasis added) (collecting cases). "[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business...." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Furthermore, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 requires parties or intervenors to fi... (truncated)

2. Order | Filed: September 03, 2026 Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company v. United States Liability Insurance Company

   Insurance | New York Southern

   Order

   ORDER: By Order of July 2, 2026, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a proposed judgment consistent with that Order. Dkt. No. 48. The parties jointly submitted a proposed judgment and characterized the judgment as "Part ial Final Judgment." Dkt. No. 50. The Court understood its Opinion and Order on the parties' motions for summary judgment to address and resolve all claims alleged in the complaint and to end the action, permitting appeal. It therefore is prepared to enter final judgment in the form submitted. Any party opposed to the issuance of final judgment shall file a letter by September 10, 2026 informing the Court of any claims in the complaint not resolved by the Opinion and Order of March 25, 2026, or any other reason why final judgment cannot be entered. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 9/3/2026) (ks)

3. 16257 additional result(s)