Stone v. Rivera et al
Filing
6
ORDER Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Removal is therefore improper. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to send a copy of this Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, and to close this action. All pending matters are hereby terminated. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 5/9/2024) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CATHERINE STONE,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
-against-
24-CV-03411 (PMH)
CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW RIVERA, et al.,
Defendant.
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
Defendants Christopher Matthew Rivera and Mondelez Global, LLC (“Defendants”) filed
a Notice of Removal on May 2, 2024, removing this action from the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Westchester, to this Court. (Doc. 1; Doc. 4, “Not. of Removal”). For the
reasons set forth below, this matter is REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Westchester.
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2024, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, which attached a copy of
Plaintiff’s Summons & Complaint (Doc. 4-1, “Compl.”). Defendants claim that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute because: (1) complete diversity exists between the
parties; and (2) after commencement of the action in State Court, “[o]n or about April 15, 2024,
Plaintiff supplied a demand packet wherein a demand in excess of $75,000.00 was made.” (Not.
of Removal ¶ 8).
ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . .” 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The [federal] district courts shall have 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—(1) citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “The Supreme Court
has held that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of establishing
the existence of the jurisdictional amount in controversy.” Villafana v. So, No. 13-CV-00180, 2013
WL 2367792, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2013) (quoting Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d
269, 273 (2d Cir. 1994)). While defendants need not “prove the amount in controversy to an
absolute certainty,” they have “the burden of proving that it appears to a reasonable probability
that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount.” Id. (quoting Mehlenbacher v.
Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000)). “[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not
clearly alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendants’ 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. (quoting Lupo, 28 F.3d at 273-74). 1
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that she was injured in a motor vehicle accident as a result of
Defendant Rivera’s negligence and for which Defendant Mondelez Global, LLC is vicariously
liable. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-17). A plaintiff’s complaint, in an action to recover damages for personal
injuries in New York, “shall contain a prayer for general relief but shall not state the amount of
damages to which the pleader deems [herself] entitled.” C.P.L.R. § 3017(c). Accordingly, the
Complaint does not state a specific sum of money sought from Defendants and asserts only that
damages are sought “in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which
would otherwise have jurisdiction.” (Compl. at 6). If removal of a civil suit from state court to
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists,
even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Nguyen v. FXCM Inc., 364 F. Supp. 3d 227, 237
(S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)).
1
2
federal court is premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and “[s]tate practice . . . does not permit demand
for a specific sum,” removal is proper only “if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” 28. U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2).
Defendants assert that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000 because “[o]n or
about April 15, 2024, Plaintiff supplied a demand packet wherein a demand in excess of
$75,000.00 was made.” (Not. of Removal ¶ 8). Defendants have not furnished any such documents
containing a settlement demand to the Court. “Although a number of cases have allowed a demand
or settlement letter to be considered in determining the amount in controversy, the underlying
demand letter in each of these cases was submitted as evidence and the context of the offers was
clear in the record.” Daly v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 17-CV-00977, 2017 WL 3499928, at *4 (D.
Conn. Aug. 16, 2017) (collecting cases). “Here, without any evidence of the demand or context in
which to evaluate the demand, the Court cannot make a finding that by the preponderance of the
evidence the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Id.
Thus, as federal courts are instructed to “construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving
any doubts against removability,” Lupo, 28 F.3d at 274 (quoting Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc.,
932 F.2d 1043, 1046 (2d Cir. 1991)), Defendants’ conclusory allegation that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 is insufficient for the Court to determine by a preponderance of the
evidence that the jurisdictional threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) has been met. See Torres v.
Merriman, No. 20-CV-03034, 2020 WL 1910494, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2020) (“[A] mere
conclusory statement that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is insufficient for the Court
to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdiction threshold of 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) has been met.”).
3
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants failed to satisfy their
burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Removal is therefore
improper. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Westchester. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to send a copy of this
Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, and to close this
action. All pending matters are hereby terminated.
SO ORDERED:
Dated: White Plains, New York
May 9, 2024
____________________________
Philip M. Halpern
United States District Judge
4
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?