Vargas v. Escobar et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached, this case is sua sponte REMANDED to New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 500389/2016, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/2/2016. (Merin, Eric)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------X
ANTONIO VARGAS,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Case No. 16-cv-0924 (PKC) (JO)

- against ANGEL ESCOBAR and
ESPERANZA ESCOBAR,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

On February 24, 2016 Defendants Angel Escobar and Esperanza Escobar (collectively,
“Defendants”) filed a notice removing this action from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Kings County to this Court. (Dkt. 1. (the “Petition” or “Pet.”).) For the reasons set forth
below, this case is sua sponte REMANDED to State court.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s allegations assert that on January 29, 2013, he was walking down a staircase at
Defendants’ premises when he slipped on a wet surface. (Dkt. 1-2 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”)
¶¶ 7-26.) He further alleges that he sustained injuries, including “pain, shock and mental anguish”
as a result of Defendants’ negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 29.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of any other
detailed allegations.
Defendants invoke diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the basis for
federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Pet. ¶ 7.) The Petition alleges that Defendants both are citizens
of Georgia, while Plaintiff is a citizen of New Hampshire. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6.) With respect to the amount
in controversy, the Petition indicates that Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount that “exceeds
$75,000.00.” (Id. ¶ 8.) Yet the Complaint alleges only that Plaintiff “was damaged in a sum which

exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.”
(Compl. ¶ 30.) Thus far, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for remand, but has indicated that it objects
to Defendants’ grounds for removal. (Dkt. 5 at 1.) 1
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, the Court first must address whether it may remand this case to State
Court sua sponte, absent a motion from Plaintiff. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), states
in pertinent part: “A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject
matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under
section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Id. The Second Circuit has construed this statute
as authorizing a district court, at any time, to remand a case sua sponte upon a finding that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d
127, 131, 133−34 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541
(1986)).
Here, as in all cases removed to the federal courts, the removing party has the burden of
establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold mandated
by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 273−74 (2d Cir. 1994).
“[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendant’s
notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional amount, federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removing the
plaintiff’s action from state court.” Id. The Second Circuit has cautioned district courts to

1

All page references correspond to page numbers generated by the Electronic Court Filing
(“ECF”) system, and not the document’s internal pagination.
2

“construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability.”

In re

Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 06 MD 1789, 2013 WL 603187, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2013)
(citing Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1045−46 (2d Cir. 1991)).
In this case, Defendants fail to meet their burden to show that the $75,000 jurisdictional
amount required for diversity jurisdiction has been satisfied, as they assert only that “the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.00” (Pet. ¶ 8) without providing any factual allegations to support
this amount. And Plaintiff only alleges that he “was damaged in a sum which exceeds the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.” (Compl. ¶ 30.)
The Complaint’s mention of the “lower courts” is a reference to the lower civil courts of New
York, which may not entertain actions seeking to recover more than $25,000, and not a reference
to the federal district courts. See Woodley v. Massachusetts Mut., 08 CV 0949, 2008 WL 2191767,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2008) (remanding case for failure to satisfy jurisdictional amount where
defendants relied solely on ad damnum clause in complaint stating that plaintiff was seeking
damages in excess of the “monetary jurisdiction of all lower [c]ourts”) (internal citation omitted);
see id. at *2 n.3 (collecting cases). Furthermore, neither the Complaint nor the Petition contains
any further information specifying the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries that would permit
this Court to draw a reasonable inference that the amount in controversy requirement has been
satisfied. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ allegations in the Petition are insufficient
to support the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, remand to State court is
proper. See id.

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to New York State Supreme Court,
Kings County, under Index No. 500389/2016, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.
s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge

Dated: March 2, 2016
Brooklyn, New York

4