Pollas v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-10207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pollas v. United Parcel Service, Judge Wang extended pro se plaintiff Robert Pollas’s deadline to amend his complaint to August 25, 2023.
Robert Pollas, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and United Parcel Service, Inc.; the defendant was directed to serve Pollas with the order and file proof of service.
What happened
Pollas v. United Parcel Service, Inc. concerns a case in which Robert Pollas had been given until April 7, 2023, to file an amended complaint. The opinion says Pollas had not filed one or otherwise communicated with the court.
The court again explained that adding Pollas’s coworkers as defendants would eliminate diversity jurisdiction and require sending the case back to state court. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that every plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states, as the court noted.
Judge Wang extended Pollas’s deadline to amend his complaint to August 25, 2023. She directed United Parcel Service, Inc. to serve Pollas with the order and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Pollas v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10207
- Ona Wang
- June 16, 2023
Background
Robert Pollas was proceeding without a lawyer. On March 10, 2023, the court had extended his deadline to file an amended complaint to April 7, 2023. The order states that, by June 16, Pollas had not filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the court.
Jurisdiction warning
The court again noted that if Pollas amended his complaint to add his coworkers as defendants, the court would no longer have diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction is a form of federal jurisdiction based on the opposing parties being citizens of different states. The court stated that the case would then be sent back to state court.
Ruling
The court extended Pollas’s deadline to file an amended complaint, effective retroactively as ordered, to August 25, 2023. The court directed United Parcel Service, Inc. to serve Pollas with a copy of the order and file proof of service on the docket. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.