Broadwall Management Corp. v. Federal Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-01506
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Broadwall Management v. Federal Insurance: Judge Furman remanded the case because complete diversity of citizenship was not established.
Broadwall Management Corp. and the other plaintiffs, and Federal Insurance Company. The case was returned to the Supreme Court of New York for further proceedings, and the federal case was closed.
What happened
Broadwall Management Corp. and other plaintiffs sued Federal Insurance Company in New York state court. Federal Insurance removed the case to federal court, but the opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.
Federal Insurance asked the federal court to send the case back to state court, citing plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations that complete diversity of citizenship did not exist. The court stated that removal was improper because Federal Insurance had not shown that all requirements for diversity jurisdiction were met.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Federal Insurance’s request, ordered the case returned to the Supreme Court of New York, and directed the clerk to close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Broadwall Management Corp. v. Federal Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-01506
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 21, 2022
Background
Broadwall Management Corp. and other plaintiffs brought this case against Federal Insurance Company. Federal Insurance had removed the matter from the Supreme Court of New York, New York County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The opinion does not state what the underlying dispute was about.
Federal Insurance’s Request
On March 17, 2022, Federal Insurance asked the federal court to remand the case—that is, return it to state court. The request relied on plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations that complete diversity of citizenship between the parties did not exist.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Federal Insurance’s application. The court explained that removal was improper because the defendant did not show that all requirements for diversity jurisdiction were satisfied. The clerk was directed to remand the case to the Supreme Court of New York for further proceedings and close the federal case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.