Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Associates
-
Misc | Filed: March 25, 2021 | Entered: April 05, 2021 ERG Property Advisors, LLC et. al. v. Walsh
Securities/Commodities | New York Eastern
Mail Returned
Mail Returned as Undeliverable - Mail inadvertently sent to County of Suffolk. "The case your minutes are for is a Nassau County case, not Suffolk." Mail sent to Suffolk County Court (Tirado, Chelsea)
-
Order | Filed: March 12, 2021 | Entered: March 16, 2021 ERG Property Advisors, LLC et. al. v. Walsh
Securities/Commodities | New York Eastern
~Util - Terminate Civil Case
Civil Case Terminated pursuant to 3/12/2021. (Tirado, Chelsea)
-
Order | Filed: March 12, 2021 | Entered: March 12, 2021 ERG Property Advisors, LLC et. al. v. Walsh
Securities/Commodities | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference
ORDER finding as moot 8 Motion for Pre Motion Conference and REMANDING CASE to State Court. Before the Court are pre-motion submissions in connection with a motion by plaintiffs to remand as well as a curious application by defendant styled as a "motion for post Removal discovery to aid in Opposition to remand letter." In order to comply with the dictates of Rule 1, and avoid the costs and delays associated with continued needless litigation, the Court determines, in its discretion, to treat the submissions as fully submitted motions. Defendant's bases for removal of this action - a complaint filed in state court containing only state law claims -- is explicitly tenuous, as it is acknowledged in the removal petition that "counsel has not found any instance in which this Court determined that in similar circumstances Removal was appropriate." DE 1. Counsel's belated application for discovery to support the removal raises further question about the good faith belief supporting removal. Instead of legal authority, defendant's counsel simply urges that "this Court should eschew its normal circumscribed approach to search only the 'four comers' of the Complaint to discern if there are 'substantial federal issues' to support Removal." DE 1. However, with only certain exceptions (which are inapplicable here) clear case law requires that the Court consider only the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, and certainly, cannot sustain removal based upon the filing of counterclaims, particularly where such counterclaims have not, as yet, been pled. Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp., 650 F.3d 163, 165 (2d Cir. 2011) (where "complaint contained no federal claim, the district court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case and therefore remanded the case back to state court"). This Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and therefore the case is REMANDED to state court. While plaintiffs have, understandably, requested an award of costs and expenses in connection with this removal and remand, since the Court resolved this matter at a preliminary stage, and such amounts are relatively de minimus, that motion is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 3/12/2021. (Brown, Gary)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login