ANDUJAR v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM ORDER: ORDERED that Defendant shall show cause on or before 12/23/2014 why this matter should not be REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Cumberland County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 12/12/2014. (TH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

SANTOS ANDUJAR,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 14-cv-7696 (RMB/JS
MEMORANDUM ORDER

v.
GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION,
Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court upon its own motion.

On

December 10, 2014, Defendant, General Nutrition Corporation,
(the “Defendant”) removed this action to this Court, relying
upon diversity of citizenship to establish federal subjectmatter jurisdiction.

According to the underlying complaint,

Plaintiff, Santos Andujar, avers that he was terminated in March
of 2014 from his position with Defendant’s store in Vineland,
New Jersey.

(Compl. ¶ 3.)

As a result of his termination,

Plaintiff contends that he “sustained significant emotional
distress [and] economic damages.”

(Id. at ¶6.)

In the

Complaint, he demands judgment against the Defendant “sufficient
to compensate him for his losses, together with reinstatement,
costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as is
deemed equitable and just.”

(Id. at ¶6.)
1

Plaintiff does not

state a damages amount sought in his Complaint.
The Notice of Removal filed by Defendant summarily alleges
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1332.

Defendant seeks to support removal by stating

that “Plaintiff’s salary with bonuses was $27,904.64” and that
“Plaintiff was entitled to overtime pay and additional
compensation in the form of ‘promotional money.’”
Removal ¶16).

(Notice of

In addition, Defendant states that “[p]unitive

damages and attorney fees that are potentially recoverable under
the applicable state statutes should be considered with
determining whether the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold
is met.”

(Id. at ¶17.)

Per the plain terms of the underlying

Complaint, however, Plaintiff does not demand an award of
punitive damages.
It is well-settled that a removing defendant carries the
burden of establishing the requisite amount in controversy.
Russ v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 442 F. Supp. 2d 193, 199 (D.N.J.
2006) (citing Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111
(3d Cir. 1990)).

The Third Circuit has cautioned that § 1441

must be strictly construed against removal “so that the
Congressional intent to restrict federal diversity jurisdiction
is honored.” Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors America, Inc., 357

2

F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
“Because lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case
void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court
futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all
doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.”

Abels v. State

Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985) (internal
citations omitted); see also Steel Valley Authority v. Union
Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987) (“It is
settled that the removal statutes are to be strictly construed
against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of
remand.”) (citing Abels).

Thus, a removing party must provide

more than mere speculation or tenuous inferences about the
amount in controversy to satisfy its burden.

Russ v. Unum Life

Ins. Co., 442 F. Supp. 2d 193, 198 (D.N.J. 2006) (“[M]ere
speculation that a claim will exceed the jurisdictional amount
is not enough to confer jurisdiction.”); Valerio v. Mustabasic,
Civ. No. 07-534, 2007 WL 2769636, *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 21, 2007). In
other words, “if this Court has to guess” at whether the
jurisdictional threshold has been met, then the “defendant has
not proved its point.” Valerio, 2007 WL 2769636 at *4 (internal
citations omitted).
Here, the fact that Plaintiff has not stated a damages

3

amount in his Complaint, the lack of demand for punitive damages
and the fact that this is an employment matter where Plaintiff’s
annual salary was approximately $28,000 fails to demonstrate the
requisite amount in controversy.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS on this, the 12th day of December 2014,
hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall show cause on or before
December 23, 2014 why this matter should not be REMANDED to the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Cumberland County for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4