Bursztein v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-00076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perla Bursziein v. Best Buy, Judge Torres ordered Best Buy to provide information supporting federal jurisdiction while a remand motion remained pending.
Perla Bursziein and Best Buy Stores, L.P. and Best Buy Co., Inc.; the order required the defendants to provide information supporting diversity jurisdiction and set deadlines for briefing the remand motion.
What happened
Perla Bursziein v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. concerns Best Buy’s removal of a state-court case to federal court based on the parties’ citizenship. Best Buy accidentally filed the removal notice in the wrong federal district before the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York.
Bursziein moved to send the case back to state court, arguing that removal was too late. The court observed that Best Buy Stores, L.P., a limited partnership, had not identified all of its general and limited partners or stated their citizenship in the removal notice.
Judge Analisa Torres did not decide the remand motion in this order. She ordered the defendants to file an opposition and a letter identifying the partnership’s partners and their citizenship, and set a deadline for a reply if any.
The detailed version
- Bursztein v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. · No. 1:20-cv-00076
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 7, 2020
Background
Best Buy Stores, L.P. and Best Buy Co., Inc. removed the action from the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, intending to bring it to the Southern District of New York. Because of an administrative clerical error, they filed the removal notice in the Eastern District of New York. The Eastern District later transferred the case to the Southern District of New York.
On November 12, 2019, Perla Bursziein moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. She argued that the removal was untimely.
Court’s analysis
The defendants based removal on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states. The court explained that the removing party must adequately plead and demonstrate the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
A limited partnership has the citizenship of each of its general and limited partners. Although the removal notice identified Best Buy Stores, L.P. as a limited partnership, it did not identify those partners or state their citizenship. The court therefore required the defendants to provide that information while addressing the remand motion.
Order and effect
The court ordered the defendants to file their opposition to the remand motion by January 21, 2020. It ordered the defendant to file a reply, if any, by January 28, 2020. It separately ordered the defendants, by January 21, 2020, to file a letter identifying each general or limited partner of Best Buy Stores, L.P. and that partner’s citizenship.
This order did not grant or deny the motion to remand. It required additional briefing and information concerning whether diversity jurisdiction was adequately established.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.