Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 21, 2024

Ricardo v. Rodriguez Ortiz

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:24-cv-00886
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ricardo v. Rodriguez Ortiz, Judge Schofield remanded the case because defendants failed to establish complete diversity for federal jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The defendants and the case are affected: the action was sent back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, and the federal case was closed.

What happened

In Viviana M. Ricardo v. Jose Rodriguez Ortiz, et al., defendants removed the action from state court to federal court on February 9, 2024, relying on diversity jurisdiction.

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the opposing parties to be citizens of different states. The removal notice did not provide the required incorporation and principal-place-of-business information for Liam J. Transport, LLC, or the citizenship of each of its members.

The court found the removal procedurally defective and ordered that the matter be remanded to state court. Judge Schofield also directed the clerk to close the federal case and send a certified copy of the order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ricardo v. Rodriguez Ortiz · No. 1:24-cv-00886
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Feb. 21, 2024

Background

Defendants filed a notice of removal on February 9, 2024, transferring the action from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice invoked diversity jurisdiction, which permits federal courts to hear certain civil cases involving parties from different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.

Jurisdictional Defect

The court explained that diversity must be complete, meaning all opposing parties must be citizens of different states. A corporation's citizenship includes its state of incorporation and principal place of business. A limited liability company's citizenship generally depends on the citizenship of each of its members.

The notice of removal stated that the defendants “reside and maintain a business in New Jersey,” but it did not allege facts establishing Liam J. Transport, LLC's state of incorporation or principal place of business. It also did not allege facts establishing the citizenship of each member of that LLC. The court therefore found the notice of removal procedurally defective.

Ruling

The court ordered that the matter be remanded to state court. The clerk was directed to close the federal case and mail a certified copy of the order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the underlying claims in the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.