Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 3, 2025

Schapira v. Netbase Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Quid

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-01730
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Schapira v. Netbase Solutions, Judge Garnett gave Schapira until April 2, 2025, to state a qualifying amount or face dismissal.

Who this affects

Daniel Schapira must either file an amended complaint truthfully alleging more than $75,000 is in dispute by April 2, 2025, or face dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

What happened

In Schapira v. Netbase Solutions, Daniel Schapira sued Netbase Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Quid in federal court. The complaint did not expressly state the amount in dispute.

Federal courts generally may hear a dispute between citizens of different states only when more than $75,000 is at stake. The court explained that the person invoking federal jurisdiction must show a reasonable probability that the claim exceeds that amount.

The court gave Schapira until April 2, 2025, to file an amended complaint truthfully alleging that more than $75,000 is in dispute. Judge Margaret M. Garnett stated that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if he does not do so.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Schapira v. Netbase Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Quid · No. 1:25-cv-01730
Judge
Garnett
Date
Mar. 3, 2025

Background

Daniel Schapira brought this action against Netbase Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Quid. The complaint did not expressly allege the amount in controversy.

Jurisdictional standard

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction allows a federal district court to hear a case between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs. The party invoking federal jurisdiction must show a reasonable probability that the claim exceeds the statutory amount. The amount is measured when the action begins, and the amount claimed generally controls if the claim was made in good faith.

Order

The court ordered that Schapira may file an amended complaint by April 2, 2025, expressly alleging the amount in controversy. The allegation must truthfully state that the amount exceeds $75,000. If Schapira does not amend by that date, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.