Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22788
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- Moltner, a 76-year-old New York resident, sued Starbucks in New York state court after a tea spill caused burns and related injuries on February 19, 2008.
- Her complaint described injuries but did not specify the amount of damages sought under New York CPLR § 3017(c).
- Starbucks answered and served a Supplemental Demand for Relief; Moltner responded October 21, 2008 stating damages not to exceed $3 million.
- Starbucks filed a notice of removal on October 29, 2008 and Moltner moved to remand on November 12, 2008; the district court denied remand on March 13, 2009.
- The central issue is when the 30-day removal clock begins under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b): from service of the complaint or from service of the first paper that explicitly states removability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). | Moltner | Starbucks | Removal timely; clock starts when first paper states amount |
| What triggers the start of the 30-day removal period under § 1446(b). | Moltner | Starbucks | Clock begins at first paper stating the amount; Whitaker controls |
| Is a bright-line rule preferable to a flexible reading of when removability is ascertainable. | Moltner | Starbucks | Bright-line rule adopted; requires explicit damages amount to trigger removal window |
| Whether Whitaker forecloses Moltner's argument that the clock could start earlier. | Moltner | Starbucks | Whitaker supports timing from first paper with removability facts; Moltner rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (holds summons with notice can start § 1446(b) period; removability determined from first paper with facial basis)
- In re Willis, 228 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2000) (removal period begins when the initial pleading explicitly discloses damages exceeding threshold)
- Granovsky v. Pfizer, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 554 (D.N.J. 2009) (district court held no removal until explicit amount stated)
- McCraw v. Lyons, 863 F. Supp. 430 (W.D. Ky. 1994) (even without explicit damages, minimum jurisdictional amount can be inferred from complaint)
- Yonkosky v. Hicks, 409 F. Supp. 2d 149 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (supports later-start timing for removability when explicit amount is required)