Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 17, 2025

Concepcion v. Thomas, Jr.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:25-cv-05781
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Concepcion v. Thomas, Jr., Judge Schofield summarily remanded the case to state court because the removal notice omitted required citizenship allegations.

Who this affects

Jonathan Cabral Concepcion, Wilson Charles Thomas, Jr., and Vandenbush Enterprises, LLC; the action was returned to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx.

What happened

Concepcion v. Thomas, Jr. concerns a defendant’s attempt to move a case from New York state court to federal court based on the parties’ citizenship.

The court explained that the removal notice had to allege the parties’ citizenship both when the state case began and when the defendant sought removal. The notice did not do so.

Judge Schofield ordered the matter summarily remanded to state court, ruled that the removal notice was procedurally defective, directed the Clerk to send the order to the Bronx County Supreme Court, and closed the federal case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Concepcion v. Thomas, Jr. · No. 1:25-cv-05781
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
July 17, 2025

Background

The defendants are Wilson Charles Thomas, Jr. and Vandenbush Enterprises, LLC. A defendant filed a notice of removal on July 14, 2025, seeking to move the action from state court to the federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, which is federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount in dispute. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or state the amount in dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that when diversity jurisdiction is the only basis for removal, diversity must exist both when the state action begins and when removal is requested. The notice of removal must allege the parties’ citizenship at both times. The court also explained that an LLC has the citizenship of all its members for this purpose, while a corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business.

The court found the notice of removal deficient because it failed to allege the defendant’s citizenship at both required times. The order does not identify which defendant’s citizenship allegations were missing or provide the parties’ citizenship details.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the matter be summarily remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. The court stated that the notice of removal was procedurally defective. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Clerk was directed to mail a certified copy of the order to that state court, and the federal case was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.