Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ESCOBAR v. ZAPP

United States District Court, S.D. New York


July 15, 2004.

EDGAR ESCOBAR, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID ZAPP, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

By order entered May 20, 2004, the Court advised plaintiff that the amended complaint, which purports to base subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, failed adequately to allege subject matter jurisdiction because it alleged the residences of the parties rather than allege their citizenship. See, e.g., Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 E.g., (1904); Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996); Depradine v. Nissan Infiniti LT, No. 00 Civ. 6686 (LAK), 2000 WL 1280971, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2000). It indicated that the action would be dismissed absent the filing, on or before June 4, 2004, subsequently extended to July 11, 2004, of a second amended complaint remedying this deficiency. It also invited plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, to consult the Pro Se Office of the Court for assistance.

Plaintiff belatedly has not filed a second amended complaint. It still fails to allege the citizenship, as opposed to residence, of each party. Accordingly, the second amended complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will give plaintiff a final chance to save the action by filing on or before July 28, 2004, a third amended complaint adequately alleging jurisdiction.

  SO ORDERED.

20040715

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.