Mayorga v. De Montagnac
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:24-cv-08107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mayorga v. De Montagnac, Judge Buchwald ordered proof of diversity jurisdiction, warning the case would be remanded if defendants failed to provide it.
Always On Time Logistics, Inc. and Carlos De Montagnac must provide evidence supporting federal jurisdiction. Mayorga’s case could be returned to the court from which it was removed if they do not comply.
What happened
In Mayorga v. De Montagnac, the defendants removed Byron Mayorga’s personal-injury case from state court to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court found that the defendants had not supported those claims. The complaint described Carlos De Montagnac as a New York resident, while the removal notice said the defendants were New Jersey citizens. The complaint also did not specify the amount of damages, and the defendants provided no evidence that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ordered De Montagnac to provide proof of his New Jersey citizenship and ordered the defendants to support the claimed amount in dispute by November 13, 2024. The court stated that if they did not comply, it would remand the case to the court from which it was removed.
The detailed version
- Mayorga v. De Montagnac · No. 1:24-cv-08107
- Naomi Buchwald
- Oct. 30, 2024
Background
Byron Mayorga sued Always On Time Logistics, Inc. and Carlos De Montagnac in state court for claims involving alleged personal injuries. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction is a basis for federal jurisdiction that generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000.
Jurisdictional concerns
The complaint stated that De Montagnac was a resident of the Bronx, New York. The notice of removal instead stated, without supporting evidence, that the defendants were citizens of New Jersey and that complete diversity existed. The court noted that residence and citizenship are not presented as identical in the order and required proof of De Montagnac’s citizenship.
The complaint did not state a specific amount of damages. It alleged that Mayorga suffered “serious personal injuries” under Section 5102 of New York law and demanded an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of other courts that could otherwise hear the case. The defendants’ notice of removal stated, without evidentiary support, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court noted that the removing defendants bear the burden of showing that removal was proper.
Order
The court ordered Carlos De Montagnac to provide, by November 13, 2024, an affidavit and supporting documents proving his citizenship in New Jersey. It also ordered the defendants to provide support showing that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met, such as a document expressly stating the amount of damages sought.
The order states that if the defendants did not comply, the case would be remanded to the court from which it was removed. The order did not decide the merits of Mayorga’s personal-injury claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.