Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 19, 2019

Tamayo v. Ramirez

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:19-cv-10660
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Tamayo v. Ramirez, Judge Kaplan ordered an amended removal notice by November 26, 2019, or the case would be sent back to state court.

Who this affects

Eugenia Tamayo and Luis Alexis Ramirez; the order required Ramirez to address whether the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction and warned that the action would be remanded to state court if he did not file an adequate amended notice of removal.

What happened

Tamayo v. Ramirez began in state court and was brought to federal court by the defendant. The federal court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case because the notice did not adequately identify the parties’ citizenship or otherwise establish the required basis for federal jurisdiction.

The court also identified possible problems involving the citizenship of individuals, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies, as well as whether the case had been removed from state court on time. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered the defendant to file an amended notice of removal adequately establishing federal jurisdiction by November 26, 2019. The court stated that, absent that filing, the case would be remanded to state court.

The detailed version

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

Case
Tamayo v. Ramirez · No. 1:19-cv-10660
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Nov. 19, 2019

Background

Eugenia Tamayo sued Luis Alexis Ramirez. The defendant removed the action from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice of removal invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which generally requires an adequate showing concerning the parties’ citizenship and the amount or other requirements specified by that statute.

Jurisdictional Deficiencies Identified

The court held that the notice of removal did not adequately allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order identified possible deficiencies concerning the citizenship of one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies. It also identified possible deficiencies concerning the nature and citizenship of one or more business entities and the timeliness of the removal from state court.

Ruling

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered that an amended notice of removal adequately alleging federal subject-matter jurisdiction be filed by November 26, 2019. The court stated that, if the amended notice was not filed by that date, the action would be remanded to state court. The order did not itself state that the case had already been remanded and did not address the merits of the underlying dispute.

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.