Anderson v. Target Corporation
| New York Eastern District Court | |
| Judge: | Hector Gonzalez |
| Case #: | 1:25-cv-01818 |
| Nature of Suit | 360 Torts - Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury |
| Cause | 28:1441 Notice of Removal |
| Case Filed: | Apr 02, 2025 |
| Terminated: | Apr 10, 2025 |
| Case in other court: | Supreme Court of the State of NY Kings County, 504314/2025 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Apr 02, 2025 3:07 PM EDT |
|
Defendant
Target Corporation
|
|
|
Plaintiff
Genevieve Anderson
|
| Docket last updated: 04/15/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Thursday, April 10, 2025 | ||
| 8 | 8
misc
Response to Order to Show Cause
Thu 04/10 3:09 PM
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Target Corporation (Leibowitz, Allison) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit A - plaintiff's counsel's e-mail correspondence,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit B - plaintiff's Complaint,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit C - Affidavit of Service
|
||
|
order
Order of Remand to State Court
Thu 04/10 4:32 PM
Order of Remand to State Court: The Court previously ordered Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, observing that the notice of removal's reference to Plaintiff's "written pre-litigation demand" failed to establish the required amount in controversy necessary for diversity jurisdiction. See Apr. 3, 2025, Order to Show Cause. The Court noted, in particular, that the pre-litigation demand was a "very flexible" "demand [of] $100,000." See id. (citation omitted). Defendant has now filed its response. See ECF No.8 . Defendant states that subsequent to Plaintiff's initial "very flexible" demand but prior to removal, her lawyer "advised... that [she] is seeking more than the $100,000 initially demanded." See id. at 1. That does not really capture the nature of the follow-up demand, in which Plaintiff's lawyer stated that "our client is refusing any reasonable offer of settlement and has an unrealistic assessment of the value of her injuries to the point that we believe she would not accept a 100K offer." See ECF No. [8-1] at 2. That can hardly be said to bolster Defendant's claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In any event, Defendant's argument makes a more basic error by equating Plaintiff's "belief" about the value of her claim, see ECF No.8 at 2, with the amount in controversy for diversity purposes. Cf. Sanders v. N.Y. Times , No. 23-cv-2105, 2023 WL 3724818, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2023) ("[W]here a complaint does not contain facts plausibly suggesting that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum, the Court is not required to presume that the bare allegations in the complaint are a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy."). And, as the Court previously explained in the Court's Order to Show Cause, Defendant cannot rely on the Complaint's completely generic allegations of injury to establish the amount in controversy, and cases like Burr (which the Court did not cite for this point), do not help, because they rely on the old "reasonable probability" standard, not the current preponderance standard. See Reale v. Providence & Worcester R.R. Co. No. 23-cv-00990, 2024 WL 1327203, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2024). Accordingly, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this case is therefore remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Kings County Supreme Court (Index No. 504314/2025) and to close this case. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 4/10/2025. (RCM) |
||
|
order
~Util - Terminate Civil Case
Thu 04/10 4:44 PM
Civil Case Terminated. (DLMP) |
||
| Tuesday, April 08, 2025 | ||
| 7 | 7
answer
Answer to Complaint
Tue 04/08 12:36 PM
ANSWER to Complaint by Target Corporation. (Leibowitz, Allison) |
|
|
Att: 1
Certificate of Service
|
||
| Thursday, April 03, 2025 | ||
| 6 | 6
notice
Notice of Appearance
Thu 04/03 9:55 AM
NOTICE of Appearance by Marcus Brown on behalf of Target Corporation (aty to be noticed) (Brown, Marcus) |
|
| 5 | 5
misc
Quality Control Check - Attorney Case Opening
Thu 04/03 9:14 AM
This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (CV) |
|
| 4 | 4
misc
Clerks Notice of Rule 73
Thu 04/03 9:07 AM
Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link:[LINK:https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf] (CV) |
|
|
utility
Case Assigned/Reassigned
Thu 04/03 9:06 AM
Case Assigned to Judge Hector Gonzalez. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our[LINK:website] . Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (CV) |
||
|
misc
ECF Admission and Registration Notification - Removal
Thu 04/03 9:13 AM
This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (CV) |
||
|
order
Order to Show Cause
Thu 04/03 1:41 PM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Defendant has removed this case from state court. See ECF No.1 . As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, it must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy of $75,000 is met. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens , 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)). "[I]n light of the congressional intent to restrict federal court jurisdiction, as well as the importance of preserving the independence of state governments, federal courts construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability." Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky , 704 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2013). Defendant's sole basis for its assertion that the statutory amount in controversy is present is Plaintiff's "written pre-litigation demand in excess of the federal threshold." See ECF No.1 at para. 6. That demand indicates that Plaintiff's "very flexible" "demand is $100,000." See ECF No. [1-2] at 2. Merely cross-referencing that in the notice of removal is insufficient to properly invoke this Court's limited subject-matter jurisdiction. As other courts have held, "a settlement demand is not the sole determinative factor to consider when assessing the amount in controversy" and "[t]he more appropriate measure is the litigation value of the case." See Vermande v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. , 352 F. Supp. 2d 195, 202-03 (D. Conn. 2004). Where, as here, "the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in [P]laintiff's complaint, and [D]efendant'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." Cavaleri v. Amgen Inc. , No. 20-cv-1762, 2021 WL 878555, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2021). Plus, here, even if the Court were to look through the defective notice of removal and consider the state court complaint, see ECF No. [1-1] at para. 29, nothing in the complaint's "boilerplate allegations" of injury is indicative of an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, leaving the Court "left to guess at the amount in controversy." See Valente v. Garrison From Harrison LLC , No. 15-cv-6522, 2016 WL 126375, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2016) . There also appears to be a non-jurisdictional defect with removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), which requires that "[t]he notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based." Here, the notice of removal indicates that the case was initiated in state court around February 6, 2025, but it does not state when Defendant was served; rather, it just asserts that removal is timely. See ECF No.1 at paras. 1, 9. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine whether Defendant has carried its burden of demonstrating that the procedural requirements of removal have been met. See Burr ex rel. Burr , 478 F. Supp. 2d 432, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Accordingly, on or before April 10, 2025 , each party is directed to file a letter not to exceed five pages explaining why this case should not be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, if the Court does have subject-matter jurisdiction, for untimely removal. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 4/3/2025. (RCM) |
||
| Wednesday, April 02, 2025 | ||
| 3 | 3
misc
Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet
Wed 04/02 5:00 PM
Civil Cover Sheet.. Re Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet,, by Target Corporation (Leibowitz, Allison) |
|
| 2 | 2
misc
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Wed 04/02 3:20 PM
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Target Corporation (Leibowitz, Allison) |
|
|
Att: 1
Certificate of Service
|
||
| 1 | 1
notice
Notice of Removal
Wed 04/02 3:11 PM
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Target Corporation from Supreme Kings, case number 504314/2025. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANYEDC-18914886) (Leibowitz, Allison) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Exhibit A-Summons & Complaint,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit Exhibit B-Prelitigation Demand,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Civil Cover Sheet Civil Coversheet
|
||
|
notice
Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet
Wed 04/02 3:55 PM
Notice: Requires Newly Updated Civil Cover Sheet. The Civil cover sheet has been updated and The Clerk's Office requires the updated version of the civil cover sheet to continue to process this case. The form is available at:[LINK:https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/forms/js-44-civil-cover-sheet] Please resubmit using new JS44 under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (CV) |
||