Hutchison v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 10

ORDER AND OPINION: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant show cause in writing by December 4 2017, why this action should not be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 11/20/2017) (ap)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRTCT OF NEW YORK
THERESA HUTCHISON,
Plaintiff,
-against-

17-cv-1005 (NSR)

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO.,

ORDER AND OPINION

Defendants.

NELSONS. ROMAN, United States District Judge
On January 6, 2017 Plaintiff, a resident of New York, filed the instant action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, for benefits owed under her" All
Risk" homeowners insurance policy which she purchased from the Defendant. Plaintiff claims
that she suffered loss to her property as a result of a theft on or about January 7, 2015, and that
the lost property was covered under her homeowners insurance. Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages "in excess of $40,000" along with an undefined amount of consequential damages,
interest, and other relief as the Comt deems just and equitable. (Comp!. at iJ 37.) Defendant, a
corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, filed a Notice of Removal (ECF No.
I.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on February 10, 2017. Defendants alleges that this Court has

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(I).
This Court has original jurisdiction "of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of
different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(I). It is well settled that the patty who seeks the exercise
of diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that the case is properly before the Comt.
See e.g., McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); United Food &
Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc.,
30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir.1994) ("Where, as here, jurisdiction is asse1ted by a defendant in a
1

removal petition, it follows that the defendant has the burden of establishing that removal is
proper."); Seed Holdings, Inc. v. JifJY Intern. AS, 5 F.Supp.3d. 565, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("The
party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal
court."). Where the basis for removal is federal diversity jurisdiction, some indication that the
amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied must appear on the face of the pleadings.
See In re lvfethyl Tertimy Butyl Ether Products Liability, 488 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir. 2007) More
specifically, "a defendant's notice ofremoval need include only a plausible allegation that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold" of $75,000. Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC.. v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
Here, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $40,000. Fmther,
Defendant has not offered pleadings indicating that the amount in controversy is in in excess of
the threshold jurisdictional amount pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant show cause in writing by December
4 2017, why this action should not be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Orange, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED:

Dated: November 20, 2017
White Plains, New York

N~

United States District Judge

2