Honest Funding LLC v. Gilmore Heights Dental Holdings LTD et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HONEST FUNDING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. 	1:26-cv-01676 (AMN/PJE)
GILMORE HEIGHTS DENTAL
HOLDINGS, LTD.; ROBERT M.
GILMORE; CHARLES WESLEY
HARPER,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
DANNLAW 	BRIAN D. FLICK, ESQ.
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Attorneys for Defendant
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On September 3, 2026, Defendants Gilmore Heights Dental Holdings, Ltd. (“Defendant
Gilmore Heights”), Charles Wesley Harper (“Defendant Harper”), and Robert M. Gilmore
(“Defendant Gilmore”; collectively, “Defendants”) removed this action to federal court. 	Dkt.
No. 1. 	On September 11, 2026, this Court ordered Defendants to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	Dkt. No. 11 (the “Order”). 	On
October 2, 2026, Defendants instead filed a motion to remand this action to state court. 	Dkt.
No. 14 (the “Motion”).
Case 1:26-cv-01676-AMN-PJE Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Motion and remands this action.
II. 	BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2026, Plaintiff Honest Funding LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint with the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Washington County alleging breach of contract and
breach of guaranty claims in connection with an alleged receivable purchase agreement and
personal guaranty. See Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff served Defendants with the original Summons and
Complaint on August 4, 2026.
On September 3, 2026, Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of New York,
asserting that jurisdiction was proper under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 5-11. On September 11, 2026, this Court ordered Defendants to show
cause why the Court should not dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	Dkt.
No. 11. The Court noted first that Plaintiff is an LLC, which “takes the citizenship of each of its
members” for purposes of determining the propriety of diversity jurisdiction, Bayerische
Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012), but that
neither Plaintiff by the Complaint nor Defendants by the Notice of Removal allege the citizenship
of Plaintiff’s members, Dkt. No. 11 at 3; 1 see also Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. The Court also noted that, while
Defendants in the Notice of Removal represent that Plaintiff seeks damages of $180,015.80, NSF
fees of $3,000.00, and default fees of $38,597.32, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 11, the Complaint reflects that
Plaintiff seeks damages of only $13,248 plus interest, Dkt. No. 2 at 3, well below the minimum
amount necessary for the Court to have diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 11 at 4-5; see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. On October 2, 2026, Defendants filed their Motion, in which they concede that this Court
1 Citations referring to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s
electronic filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination.
Case 1:26-cv-01676-AMN-PJE Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and
request that this Court remand this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Washington County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Dkt. No. 14. Defendants note that their counsel
had “reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel to seek consent for this motion,” but had not received a
response as of the date of filing. Id. at 4.
III. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
In general, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to
the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP, 103 F.4th
905, 912 (2d Cir. 2024). A district court’s original jurisdiction includes “all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and “all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 	The party
seeking removal must establish federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC
v. Navidea Biopharms., Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 617 (2d Cir. 2019) (“‘It is well-settled that the party
asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction,’ and it must prove
jurisdiction by a ‘preponderance of evidence.’”) (first quoting Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472
F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir. 2006); and then quoting Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir.
2012)).
However, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Platinum-
Montaur, 943 F.3d at 616 (“‘It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited
Case 1:26-cv-01676-AMN-PJE Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
jurisdiction’ and lack the power to disregard such limits as have been imposed by the Constitution
or Congress.”) (quoting Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565
F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2009)). Finally, “[o]n a motion to remand, the party seeking to sustain the
removal, not the party seeking remand, bears the burden of demonstrating that removal was
proper.” Hodges v. Demchuk, 866 F. Supp. 730, 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (Sotomayor, J.) (citations
omitted).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
This Court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Complaint makes
clear that Plaintiff seeks only $13,248 plus interest, Dkt. No. 2 at 3; see also id. at ¶¶ 13, 15, 17
(demanding $13,248 in damages on alternative theories of liability); and Defendants concede that
their representations otherwise were in error, Dkt. No. 14 at 4. Where a case has been removed
from State court, the law is clear that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Defendants have disclaimed any argument in favor of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court notes that Plaintiff has not appeared in this action to date, see generally Docket
Sheet, and Defendants’ counsel was unable to secure Plaintiff’s consent to the Motion, see Dkt.
No. 14 at 4. Nevertheless, it is well-settled that “no action of the parties can confer subject-matter
jurisdiction upon a federal court.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456
U.S. 694, 702 (1982). The Court can discern no colorable argument in favor of jurisdiction and
Plaintiff’s decision at the outset of this litigation to file in State court reassures the Court that
Plaintiff would not suffer prejudice from a remand.
The Court therefore grants Defendants’ Motion and remands this case to New York State
Supreme Court, Washington County, for further proceedings.
Case 1:26-cv-01676-AMN-PJE Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants’ motion to remand, Dkt. No. 14, is GRANTED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that this action is REMANDED to New York State Supreme Court, Washington
County; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the
parties in accordance with the Local Rules, and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:26-cv-01676-AMN-PJE Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 5