Pena v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-02232
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Pena v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC: Judge Woods remanded the case to New York Supreme Court because the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
Freddy Pena and Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC; the case was returned from federal court to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
What happened
In Pena v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, the federal court considered whether it had the legal authority to hear the case after the defendant removed it from New York Supreme Court.
The court had ordered Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, to explain why the case should not be sent back because it had not established the parties’ citizenship, which is needed for diversity jurisdiction. Macy’s later stated that new information indicated there was no longer diversity between the parties and agreed that the case should be returned to state court.
The court ruled that Macy’s had not shown that removal was proper or that federal jurisdiction existed. Judge Gregory H. Woods remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Pena v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02232
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 4, 2024
Background
Freddy Pena sued Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC. The case was originally filed in New York Supreme Court and then removed to federal court. On March 27, 2024, the court ordered Macy’s to explain why the action should not be remanded because Macy’s had not established the parties’ citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a form of federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship.
On April 3, 2024, Macy’s submitted a letter stating that new information had become available and that it believed there was no longer diversity between the parties. Macy’s also stated that it understood the case needed to be remanded to New York Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a case must be remanded whenever, before final judgment, it appears that the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The party that removed a case to federal court bears the burden of showing that removal was proper. Based on Macy’s representations, the court found that Macy’s had not met that burden and had not established federal jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to complete the remand without delay.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.