Shakur Travel, LLC v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shakur Travel v. Hiscox, Judge Furman remanded the action because DWF failed to establish complete diversity jurisdiction.
Shakur Travel, LLC, Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc., Hiscox, Inc., and DWF Claims (USA) LLC; the action was returned to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, and the federal case was closed.
What happened
Shakur Travel, LLC sued Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc., Hiscox, Inc., and DWF Claims (USA) LLC in New York state court, and DWF removed the case to federal court.
The federal court found that DWF’s removal papers did not adequately allege the parties’ citizenship for complete diversity jurisdiction. The court ordered DWF to correct the notice and provide proof that it served the court’s orders, but DWF met neither deadline.
Judge Furman ordered the action remanded to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, and directed the federal clerk to close the federal case. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Shakur Travel, LLC v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-03253
- Jesse Furman
- May 1, 2025
Background
Shakur Travel, LLC brought this action in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. On April 18, 2025, DWF Claims (USA) LLC removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On April 22, 2025, the court issued an order scheduling an initial pretrial conference and directing DWF to serve that order and the court’s individual rules on Shakur Travel, LLC within two business days, then file proof of service. The court also issued an order identifying deficiencies in the removal notice’s allegations of diversity jurisdiction. It directed DWF to amend the notice by April 29, 2025, to truthfully allege complete diversity of citizenship and to serve the amended notice on Shakur Travel, LLC and the other defendants, with proof of service filed on the docket.
The court warned that if DWF could not truthfully allege complete diversity by the deadline, it would remand the action to state court without further notice.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the defendant bears the burden of showing that removal was proper. It also stated that remand is appropriate when federal jurisdiction is doubtful and is required when the allegations in a removal notice are insufficient to support subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority to hear the case.
The deadlines passed, but DWF neither filed proof that it served either order nor amended its removal notice to truthfully allege complete diversity of citizenship. The court therefore concluded that the removal notice remained insufficient to support federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. It directed the Clerk of Court to remand the case and close the federal case on the court’s docket. The order addressed federal jurisdiction and removal; it did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court remanded the action for insufficient allegations supporting federal subject-matter jurisdiction without reaching the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.