Read v. Marrero
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-01982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Read v. Marrero, Judge Subramanian remanded the case because the notice did not establish federal jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy.
The case was returned to the New York state court, and the defendant may seek removal again only if he properly shows that the federal amount-in-controversy requirement is met.
What happened
Read v. Marrero began in New York state court and was moved to federal court by Joseph Marrero, who relied on diversity of citizenship. The federal court reviewed whether the case met the requirements for federal jurisdiction.
The removal notice said only that the amount sought probably exceeded the required amount. The state complaint similarly referred to damages exceeding the limits of lower courts and to economic loss greater than $50,000. The court found that these statements did not show that the federal amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered the case returned to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. Judge Arun Subramanian noted that the defendant could remove the case again if he later made a proper showing of the amount in controversy.
The detailed version
- Read v. Marrero · No. 1:25-cv-01982
- Subramanian
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Joseph Marrero removed this case from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, on March 10, 2025. The notice of removal identified diversity of citizenship as the basis for federal jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional issue
The court examined whether Marrero had shown that the amount in controversy—the amount at stake in the case—satisfied the requirement for removal based on diversity jurisdiction. The notice stated only that, upon information and belief, the amount sought exceeded the jurisdictional requirement. The attached state-court complaint said that the damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of lower courts and that the plaintiff had suffered economic loss greater than basic economic loss.
Court’s analysis
The court held that these statements were insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. It explained that the reference to damages exceeding the limits of lower courts referred to New York’s lower civil courts, not the federal district courts. It also noted that New York law sets basic economic loss at $50,000, so an allegation of economic loss greater than that amount still did not satisfy the federal amount-in-controversy requirement.
Disposition
The court determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and directed the Clerk of Court to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. Judge Arun Subramanian stated that the decision did not prevent Marrero from removing the case in the future if he made a proper showing of the amount in controversy.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.