Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2022

Davila v. Intren LLC

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:22-cv-01558
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Davila v. Intren LLC, Judge Woods remanded the case because defendants did not establish federal diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Marisol Davila, Intren LLC, and Brett William SparengerG; the case was returned to New York state court and the federal case was closed.

What happened

Davila v. Intren LLC began in New York state court and was moved to federal court by Intren LLC and Brett William SparengerG. The defendants claimed that the federal court had authority because the parties were citizens of different states and more than $75,000 was at stake.

The court warned that the removal papers did not identify the citizenship of Intren LLC’s members, which was necessary to determine whether the parties were completely diverse. The defendants supplied evidence about the amount in dispute but did not provide the missing citizenship information.

Judge Gregory H. Woods ruled that the defendants had not established federal subject-matter jurisdiction. He remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and directed the Clerk to close the federal case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Davila v. Intren LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01558
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Mar. 7, 2022

Background

Marisol Davila sued Intren LLC and Brett William SparengerG in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 24, 2022. They asserted federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Jurisdictional Defect

A defendant removing a case to federal court has the burden of showing that removal is proper. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, meaning that every defendant must be a citizen of a different state from every plaintiff. For a limited liability company, citizenship is determined by the citizenship of each member.

The court issued an order directing the defendants to explain why the case should not be remanded because the removal notice did not properly allege the citizenship of Intren LLC’s members. The defendants responded with evidence intended to show that more than $75,000 was in dispute, but they did not provide information about the citizenship of Intren LLC’s members. The opinion therefore states that the defendants had not established complete diversity or federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruling

Because the defendants had not established subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Gregory H. Woods remanded the matter to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The Clerk of Court was directed to remand the matter without delay and close the federal case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

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.