Dougherty v. Sears Holdings Corporation
1:12-cv-06604
S.D.N.Y.Dec 17, 2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a negligence action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, later removed to this court by defendants.
- Defendants assert federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, claiming complete diversity between Kmart and plaintiff and damages exceed $75,000.
- Plaintiff’s initial state-court complaint did not specify damages; plaintiff later filed an Initial Disclosure stating damages total $70,000.
- During a December 11, 2012 conference, plaintiff’s counsel confirmed damages sought are $70,000.
- The district court must determine if removal was proper by verifying that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- Court holds that removal is improper because the record shows damages do not exceed the jurisdictional amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper based on amount in controversy | Dougherty’s damages do not prove >$75,000. | Damages exceed $75,000; stipulation to cap is valid but not signed. | Removal improper; damages do not exceed $75,000. |
| Who bears the burden to prove jurisdictional amount | Plaintiff’s amount is $70,000; no jurisdictional exceedance. | Defendants may prove >$75,000 by information and belief and stipulation. | Burden on defendants; evidence insufficient to show >$75,000. |
| Effect of plaintiff's explicit damages disclosure on removability | Disclosures show $70,000 as damages; supports remand. | Removal based on potential greater amount not contradicted by disclosure. | Disclosure undermines removal; supports remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1978) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; must not exceed statutory grants)
- Lupo v. Human Affairs In'!, 28 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 1994) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdictional amount)
- McNutt v. McHenry Chevrolet, 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936) (mere averment insufficient to establish jurisdiction)
- Gilman v. BHC Securities, Inc., 104 F.3d 1418 (2d Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements about amount in controversy insufficient)