SPORT-BLX, Inc. v. Salerno
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-08111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In SPORT-BLX v. Salerno, Judge Schofield ordered defendants to clarify diversity jurisdiction or explain why the case should not return to state court.
SPORT-BLX, Inc. and the defendants who filed the notice of removal—Michael M. Salerno, Northeast Professional Planning Group, Inc., and Cypress Holdings, III, L.P.—were affected by the order requiring clarification of federal jurisdiction.
What happened
SPORT-BLX, Inc. v. Salerno concerns defendants’ removal of the action from New York state court to federal court. The defendants’ notice of removal did not state the parties’ citizenship when the case began or when it was removed.
The court required defendants to file an amended notice adequately alleging diversity-of-citizenship requirements by October 7, 2022. Alternatively, they had to file a letter explaining why the case should not be sent back to state court.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued this order on September 28, 2022. The order did not decide whether diversity jurisdiction existed or whether the case would ultimately be returned to state court.
The detailed version
- SPORT-BLX, Inc. v. Salerno · No. 1:22-cv-08111
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Defendants Michael M. Salerno, Northeast Professional Planning Group, Inc., and Cypress Holdings, III, L.P., filed a notice of removal seeking to move this action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, to federal court. The notice relied on diversity jurisdiction, which requires the relevant parties’ citizenship to support federal jurisdiction.
Issue
The notice did not allege the citizenship of any party at either required time: when the original state-court action was filed and when the action was removed to federal court.
Ruling
The court ordered defendants, by October 7, 2022, to file an amended notice of removal that sufficiently alleged the requirements for removal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. If they did not do so, they were ordered to file a letter stating why the case should not be remanded, or returned, to state court.
The order required additional jurisdictional information but did not determine whether diversity jurisdiction existed or whether the case would be remanded.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.