Ahmed v. Mulford
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-00132
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ahmed v. Mulford, Judge Subramanian found removal deficient and gave defendants until January 20 to support jurisdiction or consent to remand.
Izhar Ahmed, Jacob L. Mulford, and John Galt Group, LLC; the order concerns whether Ahmed’s state-court case may remain in federal court.
What happened
In Ahmed v. Mulford, Jacob L. Mulford and John Galt Group, LLC removed Izhar Ahmed’s case from New York state court to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction.
The court said defendants had not shown that more than $75,000 was at stake. It also identified problems with their allegations about the parties’ citizenship and with the timing of the removal.
Judge Arun Subramanian gave defendants until January 20, 2025, to provide more evidence and explanations or consent to sending the case back to state court. The order did not itself remand the case.
The detailed version
- Ahmed v. Mulford · No. 1:25-cv-00132
- Subramanian
- Jan. 10, 2025
Background
Defendants Jacob L. Mulford and John Galt Group, LLC removed Izhar Ahmed’s lawsuit from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They relied on diversity jurisdiction, a federal basis for hearing certain disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Amount in Controversy
The defendants argued that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met because Ahmed had been asked during a telephone call to agree to limit damages to $75,000 but had not done so, because of the allegations in the complaint, and because the accident involved a tractor-trailer.
The court rejected those points as insufficient. A plaintiff’s refusal to sign a damages-limiting agreement cannot by itself establish the required amount. The complaint did not demand a specific amount, and its general allegations of serious personal injury and economic loss did not show that more than $75,000 was at stake. The court also held that the mere involvement of a tractor-trailer was not enough.
Other Removal Problems
The notice of removal stated that Ahmed was a resident of New Jersey, but residence is not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. The notice also said removal was timely because it was filed within 30 days of the first notice of the lawsuit. But the notice was dated December 27, 2024, and filed with the federal court on January 7, 2025, leaving the court unable to determine from the notice whether removal was timely.
Order
The court stated that removal was improper based on the inadequate showing concerning the amount in controversy. It gave defendants until January 20, 2025, to do one or more of the following: provide additional evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, adequately allege all parties’ citizenship, and explain why removal was timely. Otherwise, defendants could consent to remand, meaning sending the case back, to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. Judge Arun Subramanian did not state in this order that the case had already been remanded.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.