Acosta v. Cueva
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-06245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Acosta v. Cueva, Judge Torres remanded the motor-vehicle case to state court because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Victor Alfonso Raposo Acosta and the named defendants. The matter was returned to Supreme Court, Bronx County, and the federal case was closed.
What happened
Acosta v. Cueva concerns damages that Victor Alfonso Raposo Acosta sought after a motor-vehicle accident. He originally filed the case in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and Edith Huezo Cueva and Ryder Corp. removed it to federal court.
After Acosta added four defendants, the court questioned whether the parties were citizens of different states, as required for federal diversity jurisdiction. The court noted indications that some corporate defendants were incorporated or had their principal place of business in New York, like Acosta.
Acosta could not give a reason against returning the case to state court, and the defendants did not oppose remand. Judge Analisa Torres held that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking, remanded the matter to Supreme Court, Bronx County, and directed the Clerk to close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. Cueva · No. 1:19-cv-06245
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Victor Alfonso Raposo Acosta brought an action seeking damages arising from a motor-vehicle accident. He first filed the case in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, on May 8, 2019. Edith Huezo Cueva and Ryder Corp. removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the federal removal statute.
Acosta later sought permission to add Unitex Textile Rental Services, A & P Coat Apron & Lin Sup Inc, Shared Textile Services Div. of A & P Coat, Apron & Linen Supply, Inc., and A & P Coat, Apron & Linen Supply, Inc. The court granted permission to amend the complaint. Cueva and Ryder Corp. did not object.
Jurisdictional issue
The court then questioned whether it had diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity, meaning that the plaintiff and every defendant must be citizens of different states. The court noted that a corporate search indicated Unitex and Apron & Linen were incorporated in New York. It also noted that Unitex’s website listed its corporate office in Elmsford, New York, suggesting that its principal place of business was likely there. The court stated that this meant Unitex, Apron & Linen, and Acosta were all citizens of New York.
The court ordered Acosta to explain why the case should not be returned to the Bronx County court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Acosta responded that he was unable to provide a reason why the case should not be remanded. The defendants did not oppose remand.
Ruling
The court held that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking. Judge Analisa Torres therefore remanded the matter to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, directed the Clerk of Court to carry out the remand, and ordered the federal case closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.