Order | Filed: January 09, 2026
| Entered: January 09, 2026
Rosario v. General Motors LLC
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | New York Eastern
Order of Remand to State Court
ORDER OF REMAND to New York State Supreme Court Kings County, Index Number 538181/2025 --- On December 3, 2025, Defendant removed this personal injury action from New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction. See, Notice of Removal, Dkt. Entry No. 1 . Thereafter, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Defendant's failure to properly allege that Plaintiff's damages claim exceeds the $75,000 threshold required by 28 U.S.C § 1332(a). See, Dec. 5, 2025 ECF Order. Defendant timely responded to that Order, attaching various medical records and bills provided by Plaintiff as supporting evidence. See, Defendant's Response, Dkt. Entry No. 9 . Plaintiff replied. See, Plaintiff's Reply, Dkt. Entry No. 10 .
Defendant's Response fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied. See, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 82 (2014) ("In the event that the plaintiff does contest the defendant's allegations, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied"). It clearly states that the actual damages Plaintiff seeks amount to $35,893.42 ("Damages Calculation"), which is well below the removal statute's minimum threshold. See, Defendant's Response at 5 (citing Worker's Compensation Lien, Ex. A, Dkt. Entry No. [9-1]; Medical Bills, Ex. B, Dkt. Entry No. [9-2]). Nonetheless, Defendant submits that the amount in controversy is met because Plaintiff's orthopedic records from March 2023 indicate that: (1) "Xrays will need to be taken at regular intervals to assess the healing of the fracture"; (2) "surgical treatment may be needed to address the problem"; and (3) "Plaintiff should continue undergoing physical therapy... for an additional six weeks." See, Response at 5 (citing Orthopedist Record, Ex. D, Dkt. Entry No. [9-4]; Physical Therapy Records, Ex. E, Dkt. Entry No. [9-5]).
However, it is well established that "[t]he amount in controversy must be non-speculative in order to satisfy the [removal] statute." Pucha v. Peters, 2023 WL 6121797, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2023) (citation omitted). The additional expenses Defendant relies upon to meet the amount in controversy requirement are all speculative and thus cannot demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. Moreover, it appears that all of Plaintiff's physical therapy sessions have been accounted for in the Damages Calculation. See, Medical Bills at 3-4 (costs for Plaintiff's physical therapy sessions); See also, Response at 1 (citing Physical Therapy Records) (confirming that Plaintiff's final physical therapy session occurred on June 26, 2023). Thus, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to New York State Supreme Court, Kings County under Index Number 538181/2025. This action is dismissed and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 1/9/2026. (CC)