Uribe Vargas v. Cox
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-07215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Uribe Vargas v. Cox, Judge Kaplan ordered an amended removal notice by January 20, 2024, or the case will be remanded to state court.
Juan Miguel Uribe Vargas and Evon Lavelle Cox, as well as the state-court action, because the case would be remanded to state court if an adequate amended notice of removal was not filed by January 20, 2024.
What happened
In Uribe Vargas v. Cox, the case was removed from state court based on claimed diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states.
The court found that the removal notice did not adequately allege facts showing federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The order identified possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of individuals and business entities, as well as whether removal from state court was timely.
The court gave the removing party until January 20, 2024, to file an amended removal notice adequately alleging federal jurisdiction. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered that the case will be sent back to state court if that filing is not made.
The detailed version
- Uribe Vargas v. Cox · No. 1:23-cv-07215
- Lewis Kaplan
- Jan. 10, 2024
Background
The order states that federal jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the diversity-jurisdiction statute. The action had been removed from state court, but the notice of removal did not adequately allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court identified several possible deficiencies in the removal notice. It may not have adequately alleged:
- the citizenship of one or more natural persons; - the citizenship of one or more corporations; - the citizenship of one or more partnerships; - the citizenship of one or more limited liability companies; - the nature and citizenship of one or more business entities; or - whether the action was timely removed from state court.
The order says these were possible deficiencies “perhaps among other things,” so it does not specify that every listed deficiency was present.
Ruling and Effect
The court did not finally determine the underlying dispute. Instead, it required an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction to be filed by January 20, 2024. If that filing was not made by the deadline, the action would be remanded—sent back—to state court. The order was signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.