Vadi-Rosado v. Lopez
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-07240
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Oetken remanded Vadi-Rosado v. Lopez to New York state court after finding no diversity jurisdiction because the parties shared New York citizenship.
The case's plaintiff and defendants are affected because the federal court returned the case to New York Supreme Court, New York County, without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
In Vadi-Rosado v. Lopez, the defendants removed a case from New York state court to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states.
The defendants later informed the court that the plaintiff was a New York domiciliary, and the opinion states that Kaden Lopez and Seniorcare Emergency Medical Services, Inc. were also New York citizens. Because the parties were not citizens of different states, the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge J. Paul Oetken remanded the case to New York Supreme Court in New York County under the federal removal statute.
The detailed version
- Vadi-Rosado v. Lopez · No. 1:23-cv-07240
- James Oetken
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
Defendants removed this case from New York state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows federal courts to hear certain cases between citizens of different states.
Jurisdictional issue
The defendants informed the court that counsel had provided evidence indicating that Plaintiff Doralis Vadi-Rosado was domiciled in New York. The opinion also states that Kaden Lopez and Seniorcare Emergency Medical Services, Inc. were New York citizens for purposes of the diversity statute. The parties therefore were not citizens of different states.
Because diversity jurisdiction was absent, the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal law requires a removed case to be sent back to state court if the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction before final judgment.
Ruling
The court remanded the case to New York Supreme Court, New York County, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.