Facts
- Joseph Rodriguez-Berdecia was convicted of multiple sexual offenses, including three counts of rape, and sentenced to a total of eighty years in prison [lines="19-22"].
- The minor victim (MV) reported the sexual assaults to her mother in February 2021, leading to the appellant's arrest [lines="32-36"].
- The State called six witnesses during a three-day jury trial, including investigators and medical professionals who testified about the investigation and examination of MV [lines="44-48"].
- The jury heard MV describe multiple incidents of sexual assault, which occurred when she was between twelve and thirteen years old while living with the appellant [lines="103-112"].
- The appellant denied the accusations during his testimony, claiming MV was not truthful and attempted to shift the blame for the allegations [lines="302-325"].
Issues
- Whether the circuit court erred in denying appellant's motions for a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence to support convictions, specifically regarding timing and age of the victim [lines="331-333"].
- Whether the State impermissibly shifted the burden of proof during closing arguments by commenting on evidence not presented in court [lines="482-493"].
Holdings
- The court affirmed the denial of the directed verdict, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict, including MV's testimony and corroborative details [lines="348-350"], [lines="418-428"].
- The court upheld that because appellant did not object during trial to the prosecutor's remarks, the issue regarding burden shifting was not preserved for appeal and thus could not be reviewed [lines="492-501"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1
CASTEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Yvonne Wright (“Wright”) brings this action invoking subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Wright is a citizen of New York. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Defendant TD Bank, N.A. (“TD Bank”) is a national bank, chartered and regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency, with its principal place of business in New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013). Jurisdiction “is not waivable and may be raised at any time by a party or by the court sua sponte.” Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186, 193 (2d Cir. 2003). “A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.” Makarova v. U.S., 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). “If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be dismissed.” Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700 (2d Cir. 2000).
The diversity statute confers original jurisdiction on federal courts for “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A plaintiff that invokes federal jurisdiction “must demonstrate a ‘reasonable probability’ that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.” Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216, 223 (2d Cir. 2017). At the pleading stage, a rebuttable presumption exists that the face of the complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy if it alleges facts that plausibly suggest claims aggregating over the minimum. Schwartz v. Hitrons Solutions, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 3d 357, 364-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (VM). But conclusory allegations or boilerplate pleadings that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied are insufficient. Id. at 365.
The Complaint alleges that “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Wright paid an annual $90 “rental fee” from 2021 to 2023 for use of a safe deposit box in possession of TD Bank. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 13.) From February 2021 to October 2023, Wright alleges that she placed money into the box. (Id. ¶ 19. [1] ) In December of 2023, Wright found that a “significant” amount of money was missing from the box. (Id. ¶ 20.) No allegation is made as to the amount of money that was placed in the box or the amount of money allegedly missing. Allegations that there was a “significant” amount of money missing and payments totaling $270 in rental fees do not demonstrate a “reasonable probability” that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
Within 14 days of this Order, plaintiff shall file an affidavit setting forth the amount of her loss attributable to defendant’s actions alleged in the Complaint or the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
December 3, 2024
[1] The Complaint’s paragraph numbering is out of order following paragraph 18. What should be paragraph 19 is labeled as paragraph “8” and continues numbering from “8.” For citations to the Complaint from “18” onwards, what should be the correct paragraph number is cited.