Cantor v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-09035
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cantor v. AMF Bowling Centers, Judge Kaplan required a corrected removal notice addressing missing jurisdiction details by November 10, 2020.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the removed action, including Marianne W. Cantor and AMF Bowling Centers Inc., were affected by the requirement to address the alleged jurisdictional deficiencies.
What happened
Cantor v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. is a case removed to federal court based on claimed diversity jurisdiction. The order says the removal notice did not adequately provide information needed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The missing information may include the citizenship of individuals, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies; the nature and citizenship of business entities; and whether removal from state court was timely. The order does not identify which specific omissions applied.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered that an amended removal notice adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction be filed by November 10, 2020. The order states that otherwise the action “will be or remanded,” which appears incomplete in the opinion text.
The detailed version
- Cantor v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09035
- Lewis Kaplan
- Oct. 30, 2020
Background
The action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice of removal invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. Section 1332 generally concerns diversity jurisdiction, and Section 1441 concerns removal from state court.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court found that the notice of removal did not adequately allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order listed several possible deficiencies:
- the citizenship of one or more natural persons; - the citizenship of one or more corporations; - the citizenship of one or more partnerships; - the citizenship of one or more limited liability companies; - the nature and citizenship of one or more business entities; and - whether removal from state court was timely.
The order does not specify which of these deficiencies actually applied to the notice.
Order
The court required an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction to be filed on or before November 10, 2020. The order states that, absent that filing, “the action will be or remanded.” That phrase appears incomplete in the opinion text; the order does not otherwise state a completed final disposition.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses whether the federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction was adequately alleged and sets a deadline to correct the removal notice, rather than deciding the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.