Collado v. Korasadowicz et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT: For the reasons set forth in the attached Order and by Order dated June 22, 2012, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens. The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the state court accordingly, and close the file in this Court. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 8/28/2012. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
JOSE A. COLLADO,
Plaintiff,
- against -

REMAND ORDER
12-CV-3079 (RRM)(JO)

MALGORZATA KORASADOWICZ and
STANISLAW A. KORASADOWICZ,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
This personal injury action was commenced on or about May 21, 2012 with the filing in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens of a summons and verified
complaint. On June 19, 2012, defendants Malgorzata Korasadowicz and Stanislaw
Korasadowicz removed the action to this Court, citing as the basis for removal this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) ¶ 9.)
On June 22, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing defendants to explain, in
writing, by June 29, 2012, “why this action should not be remanded to the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Queens.” (Order (Doc. No. 4) at 1.) As of the date of this Order
defendants have filed no response, but instead filed an answer to the complaint on July 9, 2012.1
(Doc. No. 6.)
Therefore, for the reasons articulated in the June 22, 2012 Order, defendants have failed
to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” the amount in controversy requisite to
invoke federal diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(c)(2)(B); 1332(a). As such, this Court

1

Inexplicably, on the same day the Court issued its Order to Show Cause, defendants filed a second, substantively
identical, notice of removal. (Compare Doc. No. 1 with Doc. No. 5.)

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and thus orders that this case be remanded to the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Queens.2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein and by Order, dated June 22, 2012, the Court hereby
REMANDS this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens. The
Clerk of Court is directed to notify the state court accordingly, and close the file in this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 28, 2012

____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

2

“[T]his Court, like all federal courts, has an ‘obligation to raise the matter of subject matter jurisdiction whenever it
appears from the pleadings or otherwise that jurisdiction is lacking.’ ” Laufer Wind Grp. LLC v. DMT Holdings
L.L.C., No. 10-CV-8716(RJH), 2010 WL 5174953, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2010) (emphasis in original) (quoting
Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted)).

2