Date: 04-24-2023

Case Style:

Jonathan Krasner v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Case Number: 2:22-CV-6945

Judge: Dora Lizette Irizarry

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nassau County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Elizabeth Gingfold Clark and Jerrold Thrope

Description: Central Islip, New York civil litigation lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a breach of contract theory claiming $161 million in damages.

This case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of, 613985/2022, and was removed to federal court by the Defendant.


On October 14, 2022, Jonathan Krasner (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated as preferred stockholders of Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. (“Cedar”), filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County (“state court”), alleging Maryland state law claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty in connection with Cedar selling property, merging with Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (“Wheeler”), and interfering with preferred stockholders' rights. See, Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. Entry No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 1-2, 4-7, 12-15, 38, 40-42, 54-55, 58-59, 78-80, 86-87, 91-109, 111-113, 115-116, 121-145. Plaintiff brings this action against Cedar, Wheeler, and Cedar's former directors, Bruce J. Schanzer (“Schanzer”), Gregg A. Gonsalves (“Gonsalves”), Abe Eisenstat (“Eisenstat”), Steven G. Rogers (“Rogers”), Sabrina Kanner (“Kanner”), Darcy D. Morris (“Morris”), Richard H. Ross (“Ross”), and Sharon Stern (“Stern”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Id. at ¶¶ 19-27.


On November 14, 2022, Defendants removed the state court action to this Court invoking its diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. L. 1092, 119 Stat. 4, which amended the diversity jurisdiction of federal courts for class action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). See, Notice of Removal (“Notice”), Dkt. Entry No. 1 at ¶¶ 1, 4. On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff moved to remand this case back to state court alleging that this action falls within CAFA's exceptions. See, Pl.'s Mot. to Remand (“Pl.'s Mem.”), Dkt. Entry No. 15. On December 28, 2022, Defendants opposed Plaintiff's motion to remand alleging that CAFA's exceptions do apply. See, Defs.' Mem. of Law in Opp. to Remand (“Defs.' Opp.”), Dkt. Entry No. 17. On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff replied. See, Pl.'s Reply, Dkt. Entry No. 18. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for remand is granted and this case is remanded to state court for further proceedings.

Outcome: 04/24/2023 21 ORDER granting 15 Motion to Remand to State Court; Order of Remand to New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, INDEX NUMBER 613985/2022 -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court is granted. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, under INDEX NO. 613985/2022, for further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 4/24/2023. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 04/24/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: