Everett v. Tapestry
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-09275
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Everett v. Tapestry, Judge Halpern remanded the case because Tapestry did not establish federal jurisdiction.
Shaquanna Everett’s case will proceed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, rather than in federal court. Tapestry, Inc.’s removal was unsuccessful, and the federal action was closed. The court did not decide whether the defendants were negligent or resolve whether Tapestry (New York) was properly named as a defendant.
What happened
Shaquanna Everett sued Tapestry (New York) and Tapestry, Inc. in New York state court, alleging she was injured when a shelf struck her while she was shopping. Tapestry removed the case to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that the dispute involved more than $75,000.
The federal court ruled that Tapestry did not provide enough information about Everett’s injuries or the amount of her damages to show, more likely than not, that the case exceeded the $75,000 requirement for federal jurisdiction. The court also said Tapestry (New York) had not provided the required written consent to removal, and it did not resolve whether Tapestry (New York) was properly named as a defendant.
Judge Philip M. Halpern remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, because removal was improper. The clerk was directed to send the order to that court, close the federal case, and terminate all pending matters.
The detailed version
- Everett v. Tapestry · No. 7:24-cv-09275
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 9, 2024
Background
Shaquanna Everett filed a civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, against “Tapestry (New York) d/b/a Coach Outlet” and Tapestry. Her complaint alleged that she was injured when she was struck by a shelf while shopping on the defendants’ business premises. The complaint described severe and potentially permanent injuries but did not state a specific damages amount, stating only that the damages were greater than the jurisdictional limits of any lower court.
Tapestry, Inc. filed a notice removing the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. Tapestry argued that Everett’s alleged severe and permanent injuries showed that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Analysis
The court explained that the party seeking removal has the burden of showing that the amount in controversy probably exceeds $75,000. Because the complaint did not state a specific amount, Tapestry had to provide facts supporting that conclusion. The court found that neither the complaint nor the notice of removal provided enough information about the nature and extent of Everett’s injuries to allow the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the jurisdictional threshold was met. Tapestry’s conclusory statement that the claims exceeded $75,000 was insufficient.
The court also separately addressed the requirement that all properly joined and served defendants consent to removal. Tapestry asserted that Tapestry (New York) was improperly named and that Tapestry, Inc. was the only proper defendant. The court stated that it could not resolve that identity question in this posture. Because Tapestry (New York) had not provided written consent unambiguously agreeing to removal, the court concluded that remand was separately warranted on that ground as well.
Disposition
The court concluded that Tapestry failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that removal was improper. The case was REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange. The clerk was directed to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal action. All pending matters were terminated. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.