Reynaldo v. Sudzina et al, No. 1:2021cv02976 - Document 6 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the matter is summarily remanded to state court. Defendants' Notice of Removal is procedurally defective. Pursuant to section 1447(c), the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a certified copy of t his Opinion and Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/12/2021) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reynaldo v. Sudzina et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X : ABREU FALETTE REYNALDO, : Plaintiff, : : -against: : KEVIN SUDZINA, et al., : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X Doc. 6 21 Civ. 2976 (LGS) ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on April 7, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. WHEREAS, the Notice of Removal failed to allege the time during which Plaintiff was a citizen of New York, Defendant Kevin Sudzina was a citizen of New Jersey and Defendant Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. was a citizen of Massachusetts. See Dkt. No. 1. WHEREAS, a District Court may sua sponte remand a case for a procedural defect within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Notice of Removal. Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2006). WHEREAS, a Notice of Removal should allege the citizenship of the parties both at the time of the commencement of the action, and at the time of the Notice of Removal. “The general rule is when, as in this case, diversity is the sole basis for asserting removal jurisdiction, diversity must exist both at the time the original action is filed in state court and at the time removal is sought to federal court.” Adrian Family Partners I, L.P. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 79 Fed. Appx. 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2003); see also United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994). It is hereby ORDERED that the matter is summarily remanded to state court. Defendants’ Notice of Removal is procedurally defective. Pursuant to section 1447(c), the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a certified copy of this Opinion and Order to the Supreme Court of the State of Dockets.Justia.com New York, Bronx County. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the case. Dated: April 12, 2021 New York, New York 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
