Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2020

Fasharnice Stone v. White Plains Road Realty LLC

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:20-cv-04272
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fasharnice Stone v. White Plains Road Realty LLC, Judge Kaplan required better jurisdiction allegations or the action would be dismissed or remanded.

Who this affects

Fasharnice Stone and White Plains Road Realty LLC; the order required an adequate jurisdictional filing and warned that the action would otherwise be dismissed or remanded.

What happened

Fasharnice Stone v. White Plains Road Realty LLC concerns whether the complaint or notice of removal adequately alleged federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The order specifically identified a possible failure to allege the citizenship of the limited liability company.

The court gave the filing party until June 17, 2020, to file an amended complaint or notice of removal that adequately alleged subject-matter jurisdiction. Without that filing, the action would be dismissed or remanded.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued this order. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state which party would prevail.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fasharnice Stone v. White Plains Road Realty LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04272
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
June 10, 2020

Background

The case invokes federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The order states that the complaint or notice of removal did not adequately allege the existence of that jurisdiction. The order specifically checked the issue concerning the citizenship of one or more limited liability companies and cited authority requiring adequate allegations of an LLC's citizenship.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that an amended complaint or notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction be filed on or before June 17, 2020. If that filing was not made by the deadline, the action would be dismissed or remanded. The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ 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.