Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2022

Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc.

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:22-cv-09107
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc., Judge Kaplan remanded the case because residence allegations did not establish diversity citizenship.

Who this affects

The parties to the removed action: Maria Velez, CAN Trucking Inc., and Leesent Stapleton.

What happened

In Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc., the defendants moved the case from New York state court to federal court based on alleged diversity of citizenship. Their removal papers stated where Maria Velez and Leesent Stapleton lived, but did not properly state their citizenship.

The court had already warned that the allegations were inadequate and allowed the defendants to amend them. The defendants filed another notice saying that residence in New York and Pennsylvania made Velez and Stapleton citizens of those states. The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.

The court remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, and directed the Clerk to close the federal case. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09107
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Oct. 27, 2022

Background

CAN Trucking Inc. and Leesent Stapleton removed Maria Velez's action from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly relying on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties' citizenship to be properly alleged. The defendants' notice of removal stated that Velez resided in the Bronx and Stapleton resided in Pennsylvania, but it did not allege their citizenship.

On October 26, 2022, the court informed the defendants that the allegations were deficient and stated that the action would be remanded unless they filed an amended notice adequately alleging citizenship. Later that day, the defendants filed a Third Amended Notice of Removal. It alleged that Velez resided in the Bronx and Stapleton resided in Pennsylvania and then stated that they were citizens of New York and Pennsylvania, respectively.

Court's Reasoning

The court held that the amended allegations still did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction. Citing the authorities identified in its earlier order, the court explained that a party's residence is insufficient to establish that party's citizenship. The defendants had already been expressly informed of this deficiency but failed to correct it.

Disposition

The court remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. It also directed the Clerk to close the federal case. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order.

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.