Kurtz v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-06188
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kurtz v. Uber, Judge Engelmayer ordered letters addressing venue, related litigation, discovery, and timing before deciding remand.
Sofia Kurtz and Uber Technologies, Inc.; the order also directs both parties and their counsel to provide information about venue, related litigation, discovery, and the timing of the claims.
What happened
In Kurtz v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Sofia Kurtz sued Uber in New York state court, and Uber later moved the case to federal court. The opinion states that the related case against the driver was also pending in New York state court.
The court asked both sides to explain why the case was removed to the Southern District of New York even though the state case was brought in the Eastern District of New York. It also requested details about the related case, including its filings, conferences, motions, and discovery, and asked when Kurtz learned that the driver was an Uber driver and what efforts she made to add Uber to the related case or combine the cases in state court.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not decide the motion to send the case back to state court or order a transfer. Instead, he directed both parties to submit brief letters answering the listed questions by September 17, 2021.
The detailed version
- Kurtz v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06188
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 14, 2021
Nature of the Order
This is an interim order concerning Sofia Kurtz’s pending motion to remand, meaning a request to return the case from federal court to state court. The court did not rule on that motion. It directed both parties to submit brief letters answering questions by 3 p.m. on September 17, 2021.
Venue and Possible Transfer
The court noted that the case appeared to have been removed to an improper federal venue because the underlying state case was brought in a state court within the Eastern District of New York, while this case was in the Southern District of New York. The court stated that improper venue is a procedural defect rather than a subject-matter jurisdiction defect. It asked defense counsel why the case was removed to the Southern District of New York and asked plaintiff’s counsel why Kurtz had not objected to venue. The court also asked whether either party wanted the federal court to transfer the case, along with the pending motion, to the Eastern District of New York.
Related State-Court Case and Discovery
The court identified a related lawsuit involving claims against the driver concerning the conduct at issue. That case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, on May 27, 2020. The court asked both parties to describe all docket activity in that case, including conferences, motions, and other pleadings, and to describe the status and extent of document and deposition discovery.
Timing and Potential Consolidation
The court stated that Kurtz’s lawsuit against Uber was filed in the same state court on April 16, 2021. It asked when Kurtz first learned that the driver was an Uber driver, why she did not sue Uber earlier, and what efforts she made before Uber removed the case on July 20, 2021, to add Uber to the related state-court case or to consolidate the two cases in state court.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered the requested letters. The opinion does not state a final disposition of the motion to remand, and it does not order transfer or remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.