Jack Irwin, DDS v. Midvale Indemnity Company, 1:20-cv-04223

Plaintiff Jack Irwin, DDS sued in New York Supreme Court; Defendant Midvale Indemnity removed to federal court alleging diversity jurisdiction and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00.
Midvale’s removal pleadings made only conclusory allegations about the amount in controversy and contained no factual allegations establishing that jurisdictional amount.
The court sua sponte remanded the case on September 17, 2020 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), concluding the removal was insufficient to show the $75,000 threshold.
A certified copy of the remand order was mailed to the Kings County Supreme Court on September 18, 2020, after which the federal court’s jurisdiction was divested.
Midvale moved for reconsideration and sought leave to brief and amend its Notice of Removal (invoking 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b), 1653); the district court denied the motion because it no longer had jurisdiction to act after certification and mailing of the remand order.
The court also observed that, even if it could consider Midvale’s proffered evidence, Midvale likely still would not meet its burden to show the requisite amount in controversy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court can reconsider its sua sponte remand after certifying and mailing the remand order	Remand is final and unreviewable once certified and mailed	Court should permit reconsideration and further briefing	Denied — § 1447(d) bars district-court reconsideration once remand order is mailed; court divested of jurisdiction
Whether defendant may amend the Notice of Removal post-remand to cure jurisdictional defects	Opposes post-remand amendment	Seeks leave to amend under §§ 1446(b) and 1653 to supply facts on amount in controversy	Denied — court cannot permit amendment after remand certification because it lacks jurisdiction
Whether the court erred in remanding sua sponte without first allowing defendant to present evidence	Remand on jurisdictional grounds is proper	Argues it was deprived of an opportunity to present evidence before remand	Rejected — courts may remand sua sponte under § 1447(c); defendant had the opportunity at removal and failed to meet its burden
Whether the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied on the record	Complaint alleges substantial business losses but no dollar amount	Argues losses can be inferred (e.g., $5,000 weekly loss extrapolated)	Even if considered, the court likely would find the evidence insufficient; inferences from the complaint alone are inadequate to meet the defendant’s burden

Shapiro v. Logistec USA, Inc., 412 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2005) (remand order certified and mailed divests the district court of jurisdiction and § 1447(d) bars reconsideration)
Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2006) (district court may sua sponte remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1447(c))
Comm’r of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Boertlein v. Clarke, [citation="768 F. App'x 92"] (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming that § 1447(d) precludes district-court reconsideration of remand orders)