615 Building Company LLC. v. Smith et al

Filing 2

ORDER: The Court notes that Defendant is a barred attorney, and, accordingly, will not grant her the "special solicitude" usually afforded to pro se litigants. See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 103 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendant is direct ed to show cause, by filing a declaration by February 13, 2024, why this action should not be remanded to state court. Defendant's declaration must allege facts addressing each issue identified in this order. If Defendant fails to comply with this order within the prescribed time, the Court will remand this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Supreme Court, New York County. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 2/6/2024) (ks)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 615 (Building) Company LLC, USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 2/6/2024 Plaintiff, -againstLouisa A. Smith, 24 Civ. 753 (AT) ORDER Defendant. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of Defendant pro se Louisa A. Smith’s notice of removal, filed February 2, 2024. ECF No. 1. The notice is deficient in several ways. First, it does not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Second, a defendant must file a notice of removal “within 30 days after the receipt . . of a copy of the initial pleading . . . , or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Defendant’s notice of removal states that she “has sought for yearly three years to be heard in state court,” suggesting that removal is untimely. ECF No. 1 at 2. Third, the notice does not indicate the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Court notes that Defendant is a barred attorney, and, accordingly, will not grant her the “special solicitude” usually afforded to pro se litigants. See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 103 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendant is directed to show cause, by filing a declaration by February 13, 2024, why this action should not be remanded to state court. Defendant’s declaration must allege facts addressing each issue identified in this order. If Defendant fails to comply with this order within the prescribed time, the Court will remand this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Supreme Court, New York County. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 6, 2024 New York, New York

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?