Read v. Marrero
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-02193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Read v. Marrero: Judge Kaplan found the removal notice deficient and gave a deadline to correct it before remanding the action.
The parties to the removed action, including Kelin Rafael Read and Joseph Marrero, and the action's continued status in federal court.
What happened
In Read v. Marrero, the case was removed to federal court under laws governing federal jurisdiction and removal. The order does not describe the underlying dispute.
The court said the notice of removal did not adequately show that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Possible deficiencies included failing to adequately allege the citizenship of individuals, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies.
Judge Kaplan gave the removing party until March 28, 2025, to file an amended notice that adequately alleges federal jurisdiction. The court stated that the action will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if that filing is not made.
The detailed version
- Read v. Marrero · No. 1:25-cv-02193
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
The order concerns an action removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice of removal invoked 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. Section 1332 generally concerns federal jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy; Section 1441 concerns removal from state court to federal court. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or dispute.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court held 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, the citizenship of one or more corporations, the citizenship of one or more partnerships, and the exact nature and citizenship of one or more alleged limited liability companies. The wording indicates that these were examples of possible deficiencies rather than necessarily an exhaustive list.
Ruling
The court allowed until March 28, 2025, for the filing of an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. It stated that, absent that filing, the action will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.