Umpierre v. Transport
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-07631
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Krystle Umpierre v. HRS Transport, Judge Kaplan required a corrected removal notice or warned the case would be sent back for lack of jurisdiction.
The parties to the removed action, including Krystle Umpierre and HRS Transport, Inc., et ano.; the removal must be supported by an amended notice adequately alleging federal subject-matter jurisdiction or the action will be remanded.
What happened
Krystle Umpierre v. HRS Transport, Inc., et ano. is a case removed to the Southern District of New York under federal diversity and removal laws. The court found that the notice of removal did not adequately allege the parties’ citizenship and therefore did not adequately show federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court gave the filing party until September 26, 2025, to submit an amended notice of removal that adequately alleges federal jurisdiction. The court stated that, if no adequate amended notice is filed by that deadline, the action will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not itself remand the action.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order on September 19, 2025. The order identifies possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of natural persons, corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies, but does not determine which specific deficiency or deficiencies must be corrected.
The detailed version
- Umpierre v. Transport · No. 1:25-cv-07631
- Lewis Kaplan
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice of removal invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. Section 1332 generally concerns federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, and Section 1441 concerns removal of cases to federal court.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the notice of removal failed adequately to allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court could not determine from the notice whether it had authority to hear the case. The order stated that the notice may inadequately allege, among other things, the citizenship of one or more natural persons, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies. For a limited liability company, the court also identified the need to allege the exact nature and citizenship of the entity or entities involved.
The order cited decisions addressing the citizenship requirements for those types of parties. It did not identify which particular party or parties were inadequately described.
Disposition
The court ordered that an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction must be filed on or before September 26, 2025. If that filing is not made, the court stated that the action will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not itself remand the action and did not decide the underlying merits of the dispute. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.