From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

EFAM ENTERPRISES v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 29, 2002
02 Civ. 3854 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. May. 29, 2002)

Opinion

02 Civ. 3854 (LAK)

May 29, 2002


ORDER


This action was commenced in New York Supreme Court, New York County, on or about April 16, 2002 and purportedly removed to this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship on May 21, 2002.

The notice of removal alleges that the caption incorrectly names the defendant as The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Inc., d/b/a Travelers Insurance whereas the defendant (singular) is The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Inc. and The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company. It defines what thus appear to be two companies as "collectively `Travelers'." It then goes on to allege that Travelers is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut, which of course implies that the two companies actually are only one entity, perhaps having a name that suggests that "Travelers" as defined in the notice consists of two. Reference to the web sites of the New York State and Connecticut Departments of Insurance suggests that there actually are two entities: The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Inc. and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company. If in fact there are two, it is unclear whether the removing party(ies)' notice contains jurisdictional allegations as to one or both, whether one or both have been served, and whether one or both join in the purported removal.

See Property and Casualty Insurershttp://www.ins.state.ny.us/Isprp01.htm. (last visited May 29, 2002); Licensed Insurance Companies, Approved Reinsurers, Surplus Lines Reinsurers and Risk Retention Groups in Connecticut as of March 31, 2002http://www.state.ct.us/cid/licencom.pdf (last visited May 29, 2002).

All of this would have been sufficient to remand the case, as the removing party bears the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. But the Court need not rely on this confusion alone.

The notice of removal alleges that the plaintiff is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York. That, however, is not a sufficient allegation of the citizenship of the plaintiff. E.g., Ferrara Bakery Café, Inc. v. Colavita Pasta Olive Oil Corp., No. 98 Civ. 4344(LAP), 1999 WL 135234, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 1999) (limited liability company citizen of every state of which any of its members is a citizen).

Defendant (or defendants, as the case may be) having failed adequately to allege facts sufficient to show the existence of complete diversity of citizenship and the proper and timely removal of the action, this case is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, whence it was removed.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

EFAM ENTERPRISES v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 29, 2002
02 Civ. 3854 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. May. 29, 2002)
Case details for

EFAM ENTERPRISES v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA

Case Details

Full title:EFAM ENTERPRISES, LLC, etc., Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: May 29, 2002

Citations

02 Civ. 3854 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. May. 29, 2002)

Citing Cases

N.Y.C. Med. Neurodiagnostic, v. Republic W. Ins. Co.

Turning first to the contention that this Court's use of a state governmental web site was improper, the…