City of Syracuse v. Loomis Armored US, LLC

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice to renew 31 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying without prejudice to renew 35 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim: The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants sha ll submit within TWENTY (20) DAYS of the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed TWENTY(20) PAGES, addressing the jurisdictional concerns set forth above; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff sha ll have TEN (10) DAYS to submit a response to Defendants' submissions, which shall not exceed TWENTY (20) PAGES; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 5/24/12. (ban)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
CITY OF SYRACUSE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

5:11-cv-00744
(MAD/GHL)

LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC; MICHAEL
BUCCI; RONALD MANCUSO; and SEAN
MCGUIGAN,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

CITY OF SYRACUSE
OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
233 East Washington Street
City Hall
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorneys for Plaintiff

JAMES P. McGINTY, ESQ.
SHANNON T. O'CONNOR, ESQ.

HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza - 26th Floor
New York, New York 10112
Attorneys for Defendant Loomis
Armored US, LLC

JONATHAN D. PRESSMENT, ESQ.

TREVETT, CRISTO, SALZER &
ANDOLINA, P.C.
2 State Street, Suite 1000
Rochester, New York 14614
Attorneys for Defendant Michael Bucci

DAVID H. EALY, ESQ.

OFFICE OF A. SHELDON GOULD
P.O. Box 11169
Syracuse, New York 13218
Attorneys for Defendant Sean McGuigan

A. SHELDON GOULD, ESQ.

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga
County, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and negligence. On July 1, 2011,
Defendant Loomis Armored US, LLC ("Loomis") removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1446, asserting that the Court possesses jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a) by virtue of the fact that complete diversity exists between the parties and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
On July 8, 2011, Defendant Loomis filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the complaint is time barred
and that it fails to state any prima facie claims for relief. Thereafter, on July 21, 2011, Plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the action back to state court. See Dkt. No. 5. In a December 15, 2011
Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand. See Dkt. No.
16.
In a letter dated January 4, 2012, Plaintiff informed the Court that it did not intend to
oppose Defendant Loomis' motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 17. On January 11, 2012, the Court
granted Defendant Loomis' motion to dismiss, but granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend its
complaint. See Dkt. No. 19. On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed its amended complaint. See
Dkt. No. 22. The amended complaint includes five causes against Defendant Loomis, as well as
claims against three new Defendants (Michael Bucci, Sean McGuigan, and Ronald Mancuso).1
See id.
Currently before the Court are Defendant Loomis' and Defendant Bucci's motions to
dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 31, 35.

1

The Court notes that Defendant Ronald Mancuso has not yet appeared in this matter.
2

II. DISCUSSION
A defendant may remove to federal court "'any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.'" Shapiro v. Logistec USA
Inc., 412 F.3d 307, 309-10 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). However, once a case
has been removed, it must be remanded "'[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.'" Id. at 310 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). Where,
as here, jurisdiction is asserted by a defendant in a removal petition, the defendant bears the
burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. WorldCom,
Inc., 368 F.3d 86, 100 (2d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). If there are any doubts as to
removability, they are resolved against removability "out of respect for the limited jurisdiction of
the federal courts and the rights of the states." In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE")
Prods. Liab. Litig., 488 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Defendant Loomis based its removal on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. It is well settled that to invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be
complete diversity of citizenship. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). In
other words, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as
any defendant. See, e.g., St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Universal Builders Supply, 409 F.3d
73, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a
citizen of any state in which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of
business. See Universal Licensing Corp. v. Paola del Lungo S.p.A., 293 F.3d 579, 581 (2d Cir.
2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).

3

Although not addressed by the parties, it is abundantly clear from the face of the amended
complaint that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action as it is presently
constituted. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff not only clarified its claims against Defendant
Loomis, but also added three additional Defendants, all of whom are New York residents. As
such, complete diversity no longer exists.
Therefore, the only viable question at this point in the proceedings is whether to dismiss
the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, remand the case to
the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), vacate the Court's previous order permitting
amendment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or dismiss the nondiverse parties pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Abraham
Natural Foods Corp. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 576 F. Supp. 2d 421, 423-24 (E.D.N.Y.
2008) (addressing a procedural situation in a removed case similar to the present matter); see also
McGee v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 684 F. Supp. 2d 258, 266-68 (E.D.N.Y. 2010);
Bailey v. Bayer Cropscience, L.P., 563 F.3d 302, 307-08 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding that the district
court had jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier decision to grant a plaintiff leave to amend its
complaint "'[w]here . . . the record indicates that the problem of the addition of the non-diverse
defendant was not brought to the attention of the Court or recognized by the parties . . .'").
In the interests of judicial economy, the Court shall deny without prejudice to renew the
pending motions to dismiss and direct the parties to address this jurisdictional issue.2
III. CONCLUSION

Although the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint, it was not
contemplated that Plaintiff would amend its complaint to join non-diverse parties. The Court is
unclear as to Plaintiff's motive in joining these non-diverse Defendants in this action, especially
in light of the fact that they were known to Plaintiff at the time this action was first filed, and
mentioned throughout the original complaint. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 15-30, 38, 54, 65-67.
2

4

After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and the
applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant Loomis' and Defendant Bucci's motions to dismiss are
DENIED without prejudice to renew; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants shall submit within TWENTY (20) DAYS of the date of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed TWENTY
(20) PAGES, addressing the jurisdictional concerns set forth above; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff shall have TEN (10) DAYS to submit a response to Defendants'
submissions, which shall not exceed TWENTY (20) PAGES; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2012
Albany, New York

5