Arcara et al v. Schindler Elevator Corporation

Filing 5

DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, the Court finds that Defendant has shown to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). By separate order, the Court will refer this case to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 11/21/17. (JO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KAREN ARCARA and KEVIN CURRAN,
Individually and as Husband and Wife,
Plaintiffs,
Case #17-CV-220-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION,
Defendant.

On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff Karen Arcara allegedly fell from an elevator that failed to
properly meet the floor level and sustained severe, personal, and permanent injuries. ECF No. 11, Ex. A, at ¶ 7. Arcara and her husband, Plaintiff Kevin Curran, sued Defendant Schindler
Elevator Corporation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, alleging that
Defendant’s negligence caused Arcara’s injuries. Defendant, citing the diversity jurisdiction of
federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, removed the case to this Court. See ECF No. 1. The Court
ordered Defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded to the New York State
Supreme Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 3. Defendant responded. See
ECF No. 4. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Defendant has shown to a reasonable
probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
DISCUSSION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction whose power is limited strictly by Article
III of the Constitution and congressional statute.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union,
Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 303 (2d Cir. 1994)
(citing Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)). Judicial scrutiny is
particularly important where, as here, the defendant has removed the case from state court.

DiPonzio v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 11-CV-06192, 2011 WL 2693912, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 11,
2011) (noting that “removal implicates both state court independence and the federal docket”); see
also Houston v. Scheno, No. 06-CV-2901, 2007 WL 2230093, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2007).
The Second Circuit has cautioned district courts to “construe the removal statute narrowly,
resolving any doubts against removability.” Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 274
(2d Cir. 1994) (citing Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1045-46 (2d Cir.1991)).
Thus, with respect to the amount in controversy requirement under § 1332, the removing party
must prove “to a reasonable probability” that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000); Uddin v.
Mamdani, No. 16CV4385, 2016 WL 4536870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2016).
Here, Defendant has met that burden. In response to the Order to Show Cause, Defendant’s
counsel submitted an attorney affidavit and sent confidential exhibits to the Court, including the
details of the Workers’ Compensation liens, medical records, and doctors’ notes. The exhibits
explain the nature of Arcara’s injuries and note that the Worker’s Compensation insurance
company currently maintains liens against any future judgment totaling $79,625.95. See ECF No.
4 at ¶ 5. The total of the liens alone surpasses $75,000. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Defendant has shown to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendant has shown to a reasonable
probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). By separate order, the Court will refer this case to a United
States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2017
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

3