Stassa v. Target Corporation
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-01447
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Stassa v. Target Corporation, Judge Roman denied Stassa’s motion to remand, without prejudice to renew and subject to refiling, for failure to follow the court’s practice rules.
Randi Stassa’s motion to return the case to New York state court was denied based on failure to follow the court’s practice rules; the opinion did not decide whether removal was otherwise proper.
What happened
Randi Stassa’s case against Pyramid Management Group, LLC, Crystal Run Newco, LLC, and Target Corporation had been transferred from New York state court to federal court. Stassa asked the federal court to send it back.
Stassa argued that the parties were not citizens of different states because she and two defendants were citizens of New York. She also argued that the defendants waited too long to remove the case, including because they had received information about her alleged injuries and damages.
Judge Nelson Roman denied Stassa’s motion without prejudice to renew and subject to refiling because it did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Stassa v. Target Corporation · No. 7:23-cv-01447
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 28, 2023
Background
The opinion concerns Plaintiff Randi Stassa’s motion to return her case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County. The federal docket identifies the defendants as Pyramid Management Group, LLC, Crystal Run Newco, LLC, and Target Corporation. The defendants had filed a notice of removal on February 22, 2023, transferring the case to federal court.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Stassa argued that the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction because she was a citizen of New York and, according to her motion, Pyramid Management Group, LLC and Crystal Run Newco, LLC were also citizens of New York. She relied on a ground lease attached to the defendants’ notice of removal.
Stassa separately argued that the defendants’ removal was untimely. She said the defendants had received the complaint nearly a year earlier and knew or should have known more than 30 days before removal that the amount at issue exceeded the federal jurisdictional minimum. She also pointed to a verified bill of particulars served on January 11, 2023, which described alleged injuries to her right shoulder, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left knee.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Nelson Roman denied the motion to remand without prejudice to renew and subject to refiling because Stassa failed to comply with the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. The endorsement referred her to Section 3(A)(ii) of those rules. It did not resolve the merits of her arguments about diversity jurisdiction or the timing of removal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 4.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.