Opinion

Brown v. BSC Retail Owner LLC

Court
District Court, E.D. New York
Filed
Jan 28, 2022
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------

TYRONE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v. 21-CV-4958 (MKB)

BSC RETAIL OWNER LLC, CVS PHARMACY,

CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, and

BROOKSVILLE AFFORABLE LLC,

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Tyrone Brown commenced the above-captioned action on August 25, 2021, in

the New York Supreme Court, Kings County (the “State Court”), against Defendants BSC Retail

Owner LLC (“BSC”), CVS Pharmacy, and CVS Health Solutions LLC (collectively, the “CVS

Defendants”) to recover for personal injuries he allegedly sustained from a trip and fall at 1346

Pennsylvania Avenue in Brooklyn on August 29, 2020. (Summons and Verified Compl.

(“Compl.”) 3, 7, annexed to Notice of Removal as Ex. 2, Docket Entry No. 1-2.) On September

2, 2021, the CVS Defendants removed the action to this Court based on diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. (Pet. for Removal.) With the consent of all

parties, Plaintiff subsequently amended the Complaint to add nondiverse defendant Brooksville

Affordable LLC d/b/a Twin Pines Management (“Brooksville”), BSC’s managing agent for the

premises where Plaintiff’s accident occurred. (Min. Entry and Order dated Nov. 22, 2021.)

With the consent of all parties, Plaintiff now moves to remand the action to the State Court.

(Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, Docket Entry No. 18; Letter Regarding Remand, Docket Entry No. 19;

Letter dated Jan. 24, 2022, Docket Entry No. 21.)

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s consent motion to remand and remands the

action to the State Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) (“If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join

additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may

deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.); see also, e.g., Begani v.

960 Assocs. LLC, No. 18-CV-12000, 2021 WL 5362173, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021) (“Here,

[the district court judge] permitted joinder of [the nondiverse defendant] after the [a]ction had

been removed to this [c]ourt. . . . [Because the nondiverse defendant’s] joinder destroys the

[c]ourt’s subject matter jurisdiction, the [c]ourt must remand the [a]ction to State Court.” (citing

28 U.S.C. § 1447(e))), report and recommendation adopted, (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2021).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

Dated: January 28, 2022

Brooklyn, New York

SO ORDERED:

s/ MKB

MARGO K. BRODIE

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.