Jackson v. First Niagara Bank, N.A., 3:16-cv-01479

Commissioner of Labor Scott D. Jackson filed suit in Connecticut Superior Court under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72 to collect unpaid wages (double damages) on behalf of former employee Brian L. Pelletier against First Niagara Bank, N.A. for $43,934 (seeking $87,868 in double damages).
First Niagara removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; Plaintiff moved to remand.
Plaintiff and Pelletier later signed stipulations promising not to seek more than $75,000, after removal.
Plaintiff argued for remand on three grounds: (1) the State is the real party in interest (so no diversity), (2) amount in controversy is below $75,000, and (3) abstention because of novel state-law issues.
The Court found Pelletier — not the State — is the real party in interest under Connecticut law (assignment-for-collection preserves employee’s equitable ownership and right to object), that the complaint facially met the $75,000 threshold at time of removal, and that abstention was unwarranted because state law on § 31-72 is settled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Real party in interest / diversity	Commissioner (State) is the real party in interest as sovereign; a State is not a citizen, so no diversity	Commissioner brings suit on behalf of an employee who retains equitable ownership; diversity exists between parties	Pelletier is the real party in interest; diversity jurisdiction exists
Amount in controversy	Stipulation limiting recovery to <$75,000 shows amount in controversy not met	Complaint sought $87,868 (double damages) at time of removal; pleadings control amount-in-controversy analysis	Amount-in-controversy satisfied at time of removal; post-removal stipulation does not defeat jurisdiction
Use of post-removal stipulation	Stipulation should mandate remand	Stipulation came after removal and cannot divest an existing federal jurisdiction	Post-removal stipulation insufficient to defeat jurisdiction already established at removal
Abstention	Federal court should abstain because case raises novel state-law policy issues	Connecticut law on § 31-72 is settled; no exceptional circumstances for abstention	Abstention denied; federal court proceeds to decide the case

Moor v. Alameda Cty., 411 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1973) (a State is not a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes)
In re State of New York, 256 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1921) (determine real party in interest from entire record and essential nature of proceeding)
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2003) (Commissioner’s collection action arises from employee assignment; employee retains equitable ownership and right to object)
Ocean Ships, Inc. v. Stiles, 315 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2002) (presumption that complaint’s stated damages reflect good-faith amount in controversy)
Yong Qin Luo v. Mikel, 625 F.3d 772 (2d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff may not defeat jurisdiction by reducing demand after jurisdictional threshold was satisfied at removal)
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (U.S. 2013) (stipulation limiting recovery can prevent removal if in place at time of removal)
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (abstention doctrine applies only in extraordinary circumstances)
Geysen v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 322 Conn. 385 (Conn. 2016) (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72 is remedial; statute provides method for calculating double damages)