Sang v. City of New York
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:19-cv-10557
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sang v. City of New York, Judge Kaplan dismissed the Parks Department and required jurisdictional amendment or dismissal of remaining defendants.
The plaintiff, Gui Rong Sang, and the defendants were affected. The action was dismissed as to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the remaining defendants faced dismissal unless an amended complaint adequately alleged subject-matter jurisdiction by December 2, 2019.
What happened
In Sang v. City of New York, the complaint named the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation as a defendant and invoked federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship.
The court ruled that the Parks Department could not be sued and dismissed the action against it. The complaint also did not adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction, including the citizenship of certain people or business entities and possibly whether the case was timely removed from state court.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan gave the plaintiff until December 2, 2019, to file an amended complaint adequately alleging jurisdiction. Without that filing, the action would be dismissed as to the remaining defendants.
The detailed version
- Sang v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-10557
- Lewis Kaplan
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
The complaint named the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation among the defendants. It invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the statute governing certain cases involving citizens of different states and the required amount in controversy.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the Department of Parks and Recreation is not a suable entity. The court therefore dismissed the action as against that department.
The court also found that the complaint did not adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction. The order identified possible deficiencies concerning the citizenship of one or more natural persons, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and other business entities. It also identified the possible failure to adequately allege the timely removal of the action from state court.
Ruling
The court allowed the plaintiff until December 2, 2019, to file an amended complaint adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. If the plaintiff did not do so by that date, the action would be dismissed as to the remaining defendants. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order on November 18, 2019.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.