Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 14, 2021

Agbalenyo v. Evans

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-03034
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Agbalenyo v. Evans, Judge Schofield remanded the case to state court because defendants’ removal notice omitted required citizenship details.

Who this affects

The defendants’ attempt to remove the case to federal court was rejected, and the matter was returned to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The federal case was closed.

What happened

Agbalenyo v. Evans reached federal court after the defendants filed a notice seeking to move the case from state court. The notice did not state Kevin Jay Evans’s citizenship or Continental Logistics Services’ state of incorporation when the case began and when it was removed.

The court explained that, when diversity of citizenship is the basis for federal jurisdiction, those facts must be alleged for both times. It ruled that the notice was procedurally defective and summarily sent the matter back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the Clerk of Court to send the state court a certified copy of the order and to close the federal case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Agbalenyo v. Evans · No. 1:21-cv-03034
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Apr. 14, 2021

Background

The defendants filed a notice of removal on April 8, 2021, seeking to move the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice did not allege Kevin Jay Evans’s citizenship or Continental Logistics Services’ state of incorporation at either the time the state-court action began or the time of removal.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it may remand a case for a procedural defect within 30 days after a notice of removal is filed. It explained that when diversity of citizenship is the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, diversity must exist both when the original action is filed and when removal is sought. The court also noted that citizenship for diversity purposes depends on domicile, not merely residence.

Ruling

The court ordered that the matter be summarily remanded to state court because the defendants’ notice of removal was procedurally defective. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Clerk of Court was directed to mail a certified copy of the opinion and order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Clerk was also directed to close the federal case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.