Gowerie v. Crown Forklift Co
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, this case is remanded to New York State Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 701470/2017. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 4/10/2017. (Irizarry, Dora)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SUMMARY ORDER OF REMAND
17-CV-1447 (DLI) (LB)
CROWN FORKLIFT CO.,
DORA L. IRIZARRY, Chief United States District Judge:
On March 15, 2017, defendant Crown Equipment Corporation (“Defendant”), filed a
Notice of Removal to remove this action from the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
Queens County, to this Court. See Not. of Removal by Def. (“Not. of Rem.”), Dkt. Entry No. 1.
For the reasons set forth below, this case is remanded sua sponte to the state court. 1
On January 31, 2017, plaintiff Samuel Gowerie (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in the
state court alleging that he was injured while operating a forklift. See Verified Complaint (“Ver.
Compl.”), Dkt. Entry No. 1-2 at ¶¶ 5-14. Plaintiff, an employee of the New York City Transit
Authority, was operating the forklift in the scope of his employment at a depot in Brooklyn, New
York, on January 15, 2016. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6, 8-9. Defendant had performed repairs and maintenance
on the subject forklift and installed a plastic shield around the operator’s cab to protect the operator
from the weather. Id. at ¶¶ 8-10. While operating the forklift on that day, “Plaintiff was . . . struck
in the face with the aforesaid plastic shield, [and] he was caused to sustain serious and permanent
injuries.” Id. at ¶ 14.
Defendant implies that it is misidentified as “Crown Forklift Co.” in the caption of the proceeding. See Not
of Rem. at 1.
On March 15, 2017, Defendant removed the case to this Court, asserting that there was
federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Not. of Rem.
at ¶¶ 3-8. For citizenship, Defendant asserts that it is a citizen of Ohio and Plaintiff is a citizen of
New York. Id. ¶¶ 3-4; see also Ver. Compl. at ¶¶ 1-3. As to the amount in controversy, while the
Verified Complaint does not state an amount of damages, Defendant insists that the allegations of
injuries permit it to “reasonably ascertain that [P]laintiff seeks recovery in an amount in excess of
$25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs . . . .” Id. at ¶ 8. Neither the Notice of Removal nor the
Verified Complaint contain any allegations of fact establishing the amount in controversy. Plaintiff
has not filed a motion for remand.
As a threshold matter, the Court first must address whether it may remand this case to the
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.
This statute as authorizes 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) (internal citations omitted).
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 Intern., 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 “construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability.”
Stemmle v. Interlake Steamship Co., 198 F. Supp.3d 149, 156 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Lupo, 28
F.3d at 274).
With respect to the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, the
removing party must “prov[e] that it appears to ‘a reasonable probability’ that the claim is in excess
of [$75,000].” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark
Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 305 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Tongkook Am., Inc. v.
Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781, 784 (2d Cir. 1994)). Here, Defendant fails to meet its burden
to show that the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied, as it relies solely on Plaintiff’s conclusory
assertion that he was injured, has suffered “pain, shock and mental anguish,” and that he is unable
to “perform [his] normal activities and duties.” Compare Ver. Compl. at ¶ 17, with Not. of Rem.
at ¶¶ 6-8. Defendant concedes that the Verified Complaint does not specify an amount in
controversy. Not. of Rem. at ¶ 6. The Notice of Removal does not describe any attempt by
Defendant to ascertain an amount of damages. See generally, Id.
Similarly, Defendant cannot meet its burden by relying on the face of the Verified
Complaint because it neither alleges an amount of damages or provides any specific information
concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries or the treatment received. Accordingly, the
Court is left to guess at the amount in controversy based on the boilerplate allegation that as a
result of being hit with the plastic casing, Plaintiff:
was caused to sustain serious injuries and to have suffered pain, shock and mental
anguish; that these injuries and their effects will be permanent; and as a result of
said injuries [he] has been caused to incur, and will continue to incur, expenses for
medical care and attention; and, as a further result, Plaintiff was, and will continue
to be, rendered unable to perform [his] normal activities and duties and has
sustained a resultant loss therefrom.
Id. at ¶ 17. Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff simply claims that he “was damaged in a sum
which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have
jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 18. Such a barebones, general pleading does not suffice to establish that this
action involves an amount in controversy adequate to support federal diversity jurisdiction. See
Noguera v. Bedard, No. 11-CV-4893 (RRM) (ALC), 2011 WL 5117598, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26,
2011) (remanding personal injury action where neither the complaint nor the notice of removal
“particularize[d] or ampifie[d] in any way the extent of plaintiff’s injuries or damages.”). As
Defendant has failed to meet its burden, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
The Court notes that Defendant was not without recourse to determine the amount of
damages Plaintiff seeks. Pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3017(c), a defendant “may at any time request
a supplemental demand setting forth the total damages to which the pleader deems himself
entitled.” If the “supplemental demand is not served within fifteen days, the court, on motion, may
order that it be served.” Id. Rather than prematurely removing the action to this Court, Defendant
should have availed itself of the appropriate statutory provision, pursuant to which the state court,
on motion, is to order Plaintiff to respond to a demand for total damages. Noguera, 2011 WL
5117598, at *2 (“Defendants’ remedy is not to presume, by plaintiff’s silence, that the amount in
controversy, if admitted, would confer federal subject matter jurisdiction, and thus remove the
action. Nor is it the province of this Court, in the face of its concerns regarding its own jurisdiction,
to order plaintiff to respond when the state court has the power—indeed, the statutory obligation—
to consider so doing.”).
Consequently, the Court finds that based on the information contained in the Verified
Complaint and the Notice, Defendant has failed to show a reasonable probability exists that
Plaintiff’s claim is in excess of $75,000. Therefore, remand to state court is proper.
For the reasons set forth above, this case is remanded to New York State Supreme Court,
Queens County, under Index No. 701470/2017.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April 10, 2017
DORA L. IRIZARRY
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?