Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 16, 2022

Pjanic v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:22-cv-03833
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pjanic v. Stop & Shop, Judge Kaplan required an amended removal notice by May 24 or the case would be sent back to state court.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, Sibel Pjanic, and the defendants in the removed action were affected. The defendants were given until May 24, 2022, to correct the removal notice or the action would be remanded to state court.

What happened

Pjanic v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC reached federal court after removal from state court. The court said the removal notice did not adequately allege the facts needed for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The court identified possible defects involving the citizenship of individuals, corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies, as well as the nature and citizenship of business entities. It also said the notice did not adequately show that removal was timely and had not been joined by all defendants.

Judge Kaplan gave the defendants until May 24, 2022, to file an amended removal notice adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. The order stated that the action would be remanded to state court if they did not do so; it did not itself remand the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pjanic v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03833
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
May 16, 2022

Background

The opinion concerns an action removed from state court. The notice of removal invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which generally requires an adequate showing concerning the parties’ citizenship and the amount-in-controversy requirement. The order discusses only the jurisdictional allegations and the removal procedure.

Deficiencies Identified by the Court

The court stated that the notice of removal failed adequately to allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. It identified possible deficiencies concerning:

- the citizenship of one or more natural persons; - the citizenship of one or more corporations; - the citizenship of one or more partnerships; - the citizenship of one or more limited liability companies; - the nature and citizenship of one or more business entities; and - the timely removal of the action from state court.

The court also stated that the notice had not been joined in by all defendants.

Ruling

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan gave the defendants until May 24, 2022, to file an amended notice adequately alleging the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order stated that, absent that filing, the action would be remanded to state court. The opinion does not state that the court had already entered a remand order.

Disposition

The court issued a conditional remand directive based on inadequate jurisdictional allegations and the failure of all defendants to join the notice of removal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.