Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 14, 2025

Diaz v. Kia Express, LLC

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:25-cv-05112
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Diaz v. Kia Express, Judge Kaplan ordered a corrected removal notice because the court could not confirm federal jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, defendants, and the continued federal-court proceedings are affected. The action may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if an adequate amended notice of removal is not filed by August 22, 2025.

What happened

Diaz v. Kia Express, LLC concerns a notice removing the case to federal court. The court said the notice did not adequately allege the facts needed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, including information about citizenship and the exact nature of one or more limited liability companies.

The court gave the parties until August 22, 2025, to file an amended notice of removal that adequately alleges subject-matter jurisdiction. The order says the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if that filing is not made by the deadline.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order on August 14, 2025. The order does not itself dismiss the action; it sets a deadline and warns of a possible dismissal if no adequate amended notice is filed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Diaz v. Kia Express, LLC · No. 7:25-cv-05112
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Aug. 14, 2025

Background

The opinion is an order in an action involving Isaac Manuel Diaz and other parties against Kia Express LLC and other parties. The defendants invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 and filed a notice of removal. Section 1332 generally concerns federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, while § 1441 addresses removal from state court to federal court.

Jurisdictional Deficiency

The court found that the notice of removal failed adequately to allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order specifically identifies inadequate allegations concerning the exact nature and citizenship of one or more alleged limited liability companies. It also lists possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of natural persons, corporations, and partnerships. The opinion's text is incomplete after stating that the notice failed adequately to allege jurisdiction, so the full scope of the court's concern is not clear.

Disposition

The court ordered that an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction be filed on or before August 22, 2025. The order states that, absent that filing, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not state that it was dismissing the action in this order. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order.

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.