Wright v. TD Bank, N.A.
- P. Castel
- 1:24-cv-02356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wright v. TD Bank, Judge Castel ordered Wright to document her loss within 14 days or face dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Yvonne Wright and TD Bank, N.A.; the order requires Wright to document the alleged loss before the case can proceed in federal court.
What happened
In Wright v. TD Bank, N.A., Yvonne Wright sued TD Bank in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires parties from different states and more than $75,000 in dispute. Wright alleged that money was missing from her safe-deposit box.
The court found that Wright did not provide enough information to show a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 was at stake. The complaint did not state how much money she put in the box or how much was missing; the alleged $270 in rental fees was not enough by itself.
Judge P. Castel ordered Wright to file an affidavit describing the amount of her loss caused by the conduct alleged in the complaint within 14 days. The order states that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if she does not do so.
The detailed version
- Wright v. TD Bank, N.A. · No. 1:24-cv-02356
- P. Castel
- Dec. 3, 2024
Background
Yvonne Wright brought the action against TD Bank, N.A., invoking federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The opinion states that Wright is a citizen of New York and that TD Bank is a national bank with its principal place of business in New Jersey.
Wright alleged that she paid TD Bank an annual $90 rental fee from 2021 through 2023 to use a safe-deposit box. She alleged that she placed money in the box from February 2021 through October 2023 and discovered in December 2023 that a “significant” amount was missing. The complaint alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, but it did not state how much money Wright put in the box or how much was allegedly missing.
Jurisdictional analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000, excluding interest and costs. A plaintiff invoking that jurisdiction must show a reasonable probability that this requirement is met. The court explained that a complaint’s amount allegation may receive a rebuttable presumption of good faith when the complaint includes facts plausibly suggesting that more than the jurisdictional minimum is at stake, but conclusory allegations are insufficient.
The court concluded that describing the missing amount as “significant,” without stating the amount deposited or the amount missing, did not establish a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 was in dispute. The $270 in rental fees also did not satisfy that requirement.
Order
Within 14 days of the order, Wright must file an affidavit setting forth the amount of her loss attributable to TD Bank’s alleged actions. The order states that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if she does not file the affidavit. The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed at that time.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.