Mack, Jr. v. Shepard
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-08950
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mack v. Shepard, Judge Cronan scheduled a telephone conference and required defendants to address whether diversity jurisdiction’s amount threshold is met.
All parties were ordered to attend the telephone conference; the defendants were specifically directed to address whether diversity jurisdiction and its amount-in-controversy requirement were satisfied.
What happened
Joseph Mack, Jr. and Anastasia Rivera are plaintiffs in Mack, Jr. v. Shepard, against William Shepard and Boyd Transport, LLC.
The court ordered all parties to appear by telephone for a conference on November 1, 2022. It directed the defendants to be prepared to explain why federal diversity jurisdiction is proper, including whether the amount involved meets the required threshold.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order. The court did not decide whether jurisdiction exists; it scheduled the conference and requested the defendants’ explanation.
The detailed version
- Mack, Jr. v. Shepard · No. 1:22-cv-08950
- John Cronan
- Oct. 24, 2022
Order
The court ordered Joseph Mack, Jr., Anastasia Rivera, William Shepard, and Boyd Transport, LLC to appear for a conference before Judge Cronan on November 1, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. The conference was to take place by telephone, using the call-in information provided in the order.
Jurisdiction Issue
The court directed the defendants to be prepared to address why federal diversity jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In particular, the defendants had to address why the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. The court cited Second Circuit authority stating that separate and distinct claims by different plaintiffs generally cannot be combined to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement.
Disposition
The order scheduled a conference and raised a question about federal jurisdiction. It did not decide whether jurisdiction was proper, dismiss any claim, or resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.