Marra v. AT&T Services, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-09835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marra v. AT&T Services, Inc., Judge Woods postponed the remand dispute while the case was conditionally transferred for multidistrict proceedings in Montana.
Jonathan Marra and AT&T Services, Inc.; the court postponed consideration of Marra’s motion to remand and adjourned the scheduled conference while the case was conditionally transferred for multidistrict proceedings.
What happened
Marra v. AT&T Services, Inc. was removed from New York state court after AT&T argued that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction because the requested damages met the required amount. Jonathan Marra asked the court to send the case back, arguing that his punitive-damages request did not satisfy that requirement.
Before deciding the remand request, the federal multidistrict-litigation panel conditionally transferred the case to consolidated proceedings in the District of Montana. The court said that court was better positioned to decide whether Marra’s requested punitive damages counted toward the required amount.
Judge Woods did not decide the remand motion. He adjourned the scheduled January 15, 2025 conference without setting a new date, pending the transfer to Montana.
The detailed version
- Marra v. AT&T Services, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-09835
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 13, 2025
Background
The action was removed from the Civil Court of the City of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 20, 2024. AT&T Services, Inc. stated that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties were diverse and Jonathan Marra sought $50,000 in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. AT&T asserted that this request satisfied the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
Marra moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that the punitive damages requested in the operative complaint could not be counted toward the amount required for diversity jurisdiction. The court had scheduled a conference on that motion for January 15, 2025.
Multidistrict transfer
On January 13, 2025, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred the case to consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The Southern District of New York explained that courts in that district routinely defer decisions on remand motions when an MDL court will have greater familiarity with related factual and legal issues.
The court noted that Marra’s remand motion concerned whether his punitive-damages request could be included in the jurisdictional amount, and that the Judicial Panel had determined that the related claims involved common factual questions. The court therefore concluded that the District of Montana was better suited to decide that jurisdictional issue. The opinion did not decide whether the punitive damages count toward the amount in controversy.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods adjourned the January 15, 2025 conference without setting a new date, pending the transfer of the case to the District of Montana. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Jonathan Marra at the address stated in the order. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the motion to remand, and it does not state whether the conditional transfer had been completed by the date of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.