Torres v. Starbucks Corporation
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:24-cv-03945
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Torres v. Starbucks Corporation, Judge Kaplan required an amended notice of removal by June 4 or the action would be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff and defendants are affected because the action may be remanded from federal court if an amended notice adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction is not filed by June 4, 2024.
What happened
In Torres v. Starbucks Corporation, the case was in federal court based on alleged diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the required jurisdictional facts to be properly alleged.
The court found that the notice did not adequately allege the citizenship of one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan gave until June 4, 2024, to file an amended notice adequately alleging federal subject-matter jurisdiction. He stated that, without that filing, the action would be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Starbucks Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-03945
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 23, 2024
Background
The action was in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with jurisdiction invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That statute includes diversity jurisdiction, which depends on adequately establishing the citizenship of the relevant parties.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court determined that the notice of removal did not adequately allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order identified possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of one or more natural persons, the citizenship of one or more corporations, the citizenship of one or more partnerships, and the exact nature and citizenship of one or more alleged limited liability companies.
Ruling
The court gave the filing party until June 4, 2024, to file an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that, absent that filing, the action would be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute. 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.