Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2025

Gallina v. Target Corporation

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:25-cv-04658
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gallina v. Target Corporation, Judge Kaplan ordered an amended removal notice to establish subject-matter jurisdiction or the case will be remanded.

Who this affects

The parties to Gallina v. Target Corporation; the action may be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if an amended notice of removal is not filed by June 16, 2025.

What happened

In Gallina v. Target Corporation, the notice of removal did not adequately allege that the federal court had authority to hear the case. The order refers to possible missing information about the citizenship of parties, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies.

The court gave until June 16, 2025, to file an amended notice that adequately alleges subject-matter jurisdiction. If that filing is not made, the action will be remanded because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order. The order addressed the court’s authority to hear the case and did not resolve the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gallina v. Target Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-04658
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
June 10, 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 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.

Jurisdictional Deficiency

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan concluded that the notice of removal did not adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The order identifies possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of one or more natural persons, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies. The opinion’s formatting does not clearly show which listed category or categories apply.

Order

The court gave the filing party until June 16, 2025, to file an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. The order states that, absent that filing, the action will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order does not decide the underlying claims.

Authorities Cited

The order cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, as well as decisions concerning allegations of citizenship for individuals, corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.