Order | Filed: May 15, 2025
| Entered: May 15, 2025
Polito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
P.I.: Other | New York Eastern
Order of Remand to State Court
Order of Remand to State Court: The Court previously ordered Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, observing that the notice of removal's reference to Plaintiff's $750,000 settlement demand was insufficient to establish the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See May 6, 2025, Order to Show Cause. The Court noted, in particular, that the notice of removal lacked sufficient information for the Court to asses the value of Plaintiff's claim. See id. Defendant has now filed a response, see ECF No. 7 , as well as an additional reply, see ECF No. 10 . The response effectively concedes that the original notice of removal was insufficient, leaving this Court without subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lupo v. Hum. Affs. Int'l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 273-74 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, and the defendant's notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removing the plaintiff's action from state court."). In Defendant's response, it provides much more information about the nature of the injuries underlying the Complaint, but Defendant never sought to amend its notice of removal within the required 30-day period to plausibly allege the amount in controversy, and its time to do so appears to have run. See Valente v. Garrison From Harrison, LLC, No. 15-cv-6522, 2016 WL 126375, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2016) (remanding). In any event, even if Defendant still could amend the notice of removal with the information provided in its response, that information would still be insufficient because Defendant supplies the Court with no extrinsic material, such as "reliable settlement demand letters, certified medical records, and certified documents pertaining to insurance coverage or payments" that could "help guide the [C]ourt in calculating actual damages." See Brown v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 18-cv-03753, 2018 WL 4404071, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2018) (remanding). Although the Court appreciates Defendant's analysis of state precedent, cases involving jury verdicts are not particularly instructive in assessing the actual value of the claims in this case. Plus, in its response, Defendant appears to abandon reliance on Plaintiff's $750,000 settlement demand, which now seems particularly unhelpful in assessing the value of the claim in this case. This point is underlined by Plaintiff's response, in which Plaintiff intimates that the claim falls below the amount-in-controversy requirement. See ECF No. 9 at 1. In sum, because "removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed," "any doubts should be resolved against removability," and the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See Hudson Private LP v. Creative Wealth Media Fin. Corp., 629 F. Supp. 3d 237, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). Ultimately, this appears to have been a case of premature removal. As numerous other courts have explained in similar postures, rather than speculating about the amount in controversy and removing the case, a defendant can ascertain the amount in controversy with certainty (at least for removal purposes) by employing C.P.L.R. § 3017(c)'s supplemental demand mechanism. See Doe v. Warner, 659 F. Supp. 3d 293, 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (remanding). For the avoidance of doubt, the jurisdictional defect in this case lies only in the amount of controversy and not in the allegations of diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff's argument that Defendant is actually a New York citizen erroneously merges principles of personal jurisdiction with citizenship of a corporation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this case is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Nassau County Supreme Court (Index No. 606826/2025) and to close this case. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 5/15/2025. (RCM)