Murga v. Equity One, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-01689
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Murga v. Equity One: Judge Kaplan ordered a jurisdictional correction by March 10 or the case will be remanded.
Yessika Murga and the defendants in the removed action. The case will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if an adequate amended notice of removal is not filed by March 10, 2025.
What happened
In Murga v. Equity One (Northeast Portfolio), Inc., the defendants removed the case to federal court, relying on federal diversity jurisdiction and the removal statute.
The court found that the notice of removal did not adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction, including the citizenship of certain individuals or business entities. The court gave the parties until March 10, 2025, to file an amended notice adequately alleging jurisdiction; otherwise, it will remand the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order on February 28, 2025. The order did not remand the case immediately.
The detailed version
- Murga v. Equity One, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01689
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice of removal invoked federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the notice of removal failed adequately to allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order identified possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of one or more natural persons, corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies. The order did not determine that any particular category was definitively deficient; it stated that the notice failed adequately to allege citizenship “perhaps among other things.”
Ruling
The court ordered that an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction be filed by March 10, 2025. If that filing is not made by the deadline, the action will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan did not immediately remand the action in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.