Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 17, 2022

Ceesay v. Bronx Park Phase III Preservation LLC

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-00390
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Ceesay v. Bronx Park, Judge Cronan remanded the case because adding Kamara destroyed diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ personal-injury case was returned from federal court to the Supreme Court of New York for Bronx County, and the federal case was closed. The opinion did not resolve the underlying injury claims.

What happened

Ceesay v. Bronx Park Phase III Preservation LLC began in New York state court after Hullamtou Ceesay alleged serious injuries from a January 9, 2022, apartment-building fire. Certain defendants moved the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires every plaintiff to have different state citizenship from every defendant.

Ceesay later amended the complaint to add Haja Kamara as a plaintiff. The complaint alleged that Kamara was a New York citizen and that several defendants also had New York citizenship. The plaintiffs then asked the federal court to send the case back to state court, and no defendant opposed that request.

Judge John P. Cronan granted the motion to remand, concluding that the added plaintiff appeared to destroy diversity jurisdiction and that supplemental jurisdiction was unavailable. He directed the Clerk of Court to close the federal case and return it to the Supreme Court of New York for Bronx County.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ceesay v. Bronx Park Phase III Preservation LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00390
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Feb. 17, 2022

Background

Hullamtou Ceesay filed the original action in the Supreme Court of New York for Bronx County on January 12, 2022. She alleged serious personal injuries suffered during a January 9, 2022, fire in an apartment building in the Bronx. Certain defendants—Cammeby’s Capital Group, LLC, Cammeby’s Funding, LLC, SF Rector Street, LLC, and Rubin Schron—removed the case to federal court. They asserted that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because the parties were citizens of different states and more than $75,000 was at stake.

On January 26, 2022, Ceesay filed an amended complaint adding Haja Kamara as a plaintiff. The amended complaint alleged that Kamara was a New York citizen and that multiple defendants were also New York citizens. That same day, the plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court. The removing defendants were voluntarily dismissed on February 4, 2022, and no defendant opposed remand.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff’s citizenship to differ from every defendant’s citizenship. The addition of Kamara, together with the allegations about her New York citizenship and the citizenship of multiple defendants, appeared to destroy complete diversity. The court also concluded that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. It explained that when incomplete diversity destroys original jurisdiction, there is no remaining claim to support supplemental jurisdiction. Separately, the court stated that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the case was still at an early stage.

In a footnote, the court stated that the federal statute concerning the joinder of nondiverse defendants did not apply because Kamara was added as a plaintiff, not a defendant. The court nevertheless stated that, even if that statute applied, it would permit the amendment because Kamara’s claims arose from the same fire, involved common factual and legal questions, were added promptly, and would reduce the likelihood of multiple proceedings.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to remand, directed the Clerk of Court to close the federal case, and directed that the case be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York for Bronx County. This was a jurisdictional and remand ruling; the opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ personal-injury claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.