Sanzo v. Sanzo

Filing 26

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/16/2013. (Carter, J.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DAVID SANZO, Plaintiff, No. 3:13-cv-686 (SRU) v. KATHLEEN SANZO, Defendant. RULING ON MOTION TO REMAND The pro-se plaintiff, David Sanzo (“the plaintiff”), a citizen of Nevada, brought this action in Connecticut Superior Court against the defendant, Kathleen Sanzo (“the defendant”), a citizen of Maryland. The defendant subsequently removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal (doc. # 1). Now before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to remand. For the reasons that follow, the plaintiff’s motion (doc. # 16) is DENIED. “The federal removal statute allows a defendant to remove an action to the United States District Court in ‘any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.’” Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Res., 593 F.3d 209, 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994). “In general, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and 1441(a), a defendant may remove to federal court any civil action brought in state court where parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Am. Standard, Inc. v. Oakfabco, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 2d 711, 717 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The Second Circuit has held that it is a well-settled principle that “[i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.” Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Am. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 93 F.3d 1064, 1070 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938)). The plaintiff does not dispute diversity of citizenship, but rather claims that the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. In Count One of the Complaint, however, the plaintiff alleged a claim for loss of expectancy of inheritance of an estate that, at the time of his mother’s death, was a “multimillion dollar estate with 17 fully paid for properties.” See Complaint, Count One ¶ 6. As the plaintiff is one of five heirs, even one fifth of that estate would amount to over $75,000. In light of the above, and based on the allegations raised in the complaint, I conclude that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the defendant has met her burden, both with respect to diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. In sum, the plaintiff’s motion for remand (doc. # 16) is DENIED. It is so ordered. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 16th day of August 2013. /s/ Stefan R. Underhill Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?