Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. d/b/a Newmark v. KS 50 Sussex Avenue LP
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-03888
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Newmark v. KS 50 Sussex Avenue LP, Judge Subramanian dismissed the case without prejudice because the court lacked power to hear it, while retaining jurisdiction over sanctions.
Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. and KS 50 Sussex Avenue LP and the other defendants. The case was dismissed without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, while the court retained jurisdiction over Newmark’s sanctions motion.
What happened
In Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. v. KS 50 Sussex Avenue LP et al., the parties agreed and showed that they were New York citizens when the action began. That deprived the court of power to hear the case.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. The court retained jurisdiction over Newmark’s sanctions motion. Newmark could file that motion by April 26, 2024; the defendants’ response was due May 10, 2024, and Newmark’s reply was due May 17, 2024.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and retained jurisdiction over the sanctions motion.
The detailed version
- Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. d/b/a Newmark v. KS 50 Sussex Avenue LP · No. 1:23-cv-03888
- Subramanian
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. sued KS 50 Sussex Avenue LP and other defendants. The parties agreed and showed that Newmark and the defendants were New York citizens when the action began.
Jurisdiction
The court concluded that the parties’ shared New York citizenship deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the case.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. The order did not end the court’s authority over Newmark’s sanctions motion. Newmark could file that motion by April 26, 2024; the defendants’ response was due May 10, 2024; and Newmark’s reply was due May 17, 2024.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.