Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 15, 2022

Only Kids Apparel, LLC v. Zulily, LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-07820
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Only Kids Apparel v. Zulily, Judge Schofield remanded the case because removal did not establish the parties’ citizenship for federal jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Only Kids Apparel, LLC and Zulily, LLC; the case returns to state court, and the federal case is closed.

What happened

Only Kids Apparel, LLC sued Zulily, LLC in New York state court, and Zulily filed a notice seeking to move the case to federal court. The federal court found that the notice did not state the citizenship of either party when the state case began or when removal was sought.

The court explained that residency is not enough to establish citizenship for federal diversity jurisdiction, and the submitted emails did not establish the parties’ citizenship when the case was filed. Because the record did not show that the parties were completely diverse, the federal court could not keep the case.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the matter be remanded to state court. She directed the clerk to send the state court a certified copy of the order and to close the federal case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Only Kids Apparel, LLC v. Zulily, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07820
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Sept. 15, 2022

Background

Defendant Zulily, LLC filed a notice of removal on September 13, 2022, seeking to move the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court’s order states that the notice failed to allege the citizenship of Plaintiff Only Kids Apparel, LLC and Defendant Zulily, LLC both when the original state-court action was filed and when removal was sought.

Reasoning

For federal diversity jurisdiction, the parties’ citizenship must be established at both relevant times. The court explained that citizenship depends on domicile, not merely residence. Even assuming that a notice of removal could sometimes rely on supporting emails discussing a party’s residency, the emails and notice in this case did not provide a basis to determine either party’s citizenship when the state case was originally filed.

The court also noted that it could remand a case on its own initiative for a procedural defect within 30 days after the notice of removal, or at any time if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the notice and state-court record did not establish that the parties were completely diverse, the case had to be returned to state court.

Ruling

The court ordered that the matter be remanded to state court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), it directed the clerk to mail a certified copy of the opinion and order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and it directed the clerk to close the federal case. The order did not decide the underlying claims between Only Kids Apparel, LLC and Zulily, LLC.

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.