Rodriguez v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Filing 75

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 66 Motion to Remand. Signed by William M. Skretny, Senior United States District Judge on 3/30/2015. (MEAL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAYMOND A. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

DECISION AND ORDER
12-CV-340S

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant.

1.

Plaintiff Raymond A. Rodriguez, a citizen of the State of New York,

brought this action in New York Supreme Court on March 7, 2012, for breach of contract
and declaratory judgment. (Notice of Removal Exhibit A, Docket No. 1-1, Summons p.1,
Complaint, ¶¶ 1,15,22). Defendant Allstate Indemnity Company, an Illinois corporation
with a principal place of business in Illinois, timely removed this action on April 19, 2012,
on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (Notice of Removal,
Docket No. 1, ¶ 1,3,5). In his original complaint, Plaintiff sought at least $250,000 in
compensatory damages and at least $500,000 in punitive damages. (Complaint, ¶ 15,
Wherefore clause pp. 7-8). Pending before this court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
filed after removal, retaining only the breach of contract claim for damages in excess of
$250,000. (Amended Complaint, Docket No. 31, ¶ 15).
2.

Plaintiff moves to remand the case to state court, claiming that this Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction because, “[t]hrough the process of discovery, it has
come to the attention of the Plaintiff that the matter does not exceed the requirements
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1332.” (Remand Memorandum, Docket No. 66-4, p. 4;
Affidavit of Thomas P. Hurley, DN 66-1, ¶5). Plaintiff does not challenge diversity of

citizenship.
3.

Having considered the parties submissions and the relevant legal

authority, this Court finds that its jurisdiction over this matter is proper. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.
4.

Diversity jurisdiction exists in “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)(1). A defendant invoking federal
jurisdiction in a removal petition has the burden of demonstrating that the statutory
requirements are met at the time of removal. See Yong Qin Luo v. Mikel, 625 F.3d 772,
776 (2d Cir. 2010). The courts recognize a “rebuttable presumption that the face of the
complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy.” Scherer v.
Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S., 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2003). Defendant
removed this action based on the original complaint, in which Plaintiff explicitly
demanded $250,000 damages for breach of contract and $500,000 punitive damages.
(Complaint, ¶ 15, Wherefore clause pp. 7-8). Accordingly, the record demonstrates the
alleged amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal.
5.

The Second Circuit has clearly stated that “a plaintiff cannot seek to

deprive a federal court of jurisdiction by reducing [his] demand to $75,000 or less once
the jurisdictional threshold has been satisfied.” Yong Qin Luo, 625 F.3d at 776. See St.
Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292, 58 S.Ct. 586, 592, 82
L.Ed. 845 (1938) (“The claim, whether well or ill founded in fact, fixes the right of the
defendant to remove, and the plaintiff ought not to be able to defeat that right and bring
the cause back to the state court at his election.”). A party challenging jurisdiction must

establish “‘to a legal certainty’ that the amount recoverable does not meet the
jurisdictional threshold.” Scherer, 347 F.3d at 397 (“The legal impossibility of recovery
must be so certain as virtually to negative the plaintiff’s good faith in asserting the
claim.”) (citations omitted)); Yong Qin Luo, 625 F.3d at 776 (“unless the law gives a
different rule, the sum claimed by plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in
good faith”); see Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services,
Inc., 166 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding no argument presented that the damages
demanded in the complaint were made in bad faith to feign jurisdiction). Plaintiff’s bare
assertion that the amount in controversy no longer exceeds $75,000, as allegedly
demonstrated by his “Supplemental Demand in the amount of $74,000.00” falls short.
(Remand Memorandum, DN 66-4, p. 4, 5).
6.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that this court is obligated to remand the

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is misplaced. (Remand Memorandum, p. 5).
Although the statute requires a district court to remand “[i]f at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” it does not
abrogate the rule that a district court cannot be stripped of its properly established
jurisdiction by post-removal reductions in the amount in controversy. Yong Qin Luo, 625
F.3d at 776; Purple Passion, Inc. v. RCN Telecom Servs., Inc., 406 F.Supp.2d 245,
246–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (discussing at length the strong weight of authority and policy
reasons for the traditional rule; granting plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to reduce
damages amount to $74,000 but denying application for remand to state court).
7.

Therefore, Defendant “was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal

court and [Plaintiff’s] reduction of the amount claimed after removal, [does] not take

away that privilege.” St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 296. For the foregoing reasons,
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
*******
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Rodriguez’s Motion to Remand (Docket No.
66) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2015
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Senior United States District Judge