Rodriguez v. Ara Ush Chicago Tenant LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-02940
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rodriguez v. Ara Ush Chicago Tenant, Judge Halpern remanded the negligence action because Defendant did not establish that more than $75,000 was in controversy.
Cynthia Rodriguez’s negligence action was returned to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, and Ara USH Chicago Tenant, LLC’s removal to federal court was rejected.
What happened
Cynthia Rodriguez sued Ara USH Chicago Tenant, LLC, doing business as Hyatt House Fishkill, in New York state court. She alleged that she was injured after slipping in the indoor pool area at one of Defendant’s premises. Defendant removed the case to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The federal court found that Defendant did not provide enough information to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The complaint described serious and potentially permanent injuries, pain, mental anguish, medical expenses, and limits on Plaintiff’s activities, but it did not state a specific damages amount. Defendant relied on those general allegations and provided no written indication of the amount sought.
Judge Philip M. Halpern concluded that removal was improper and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess. The federal court directed the Clerk to send the order to that court, close the federal case, and terminate all pending matters.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Ara Ush Chicago Tenant LLC · No. 7:25-cv-02940
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 11, 2025
Background
Defendant Ara USH Chicago Tenant, LLC, doing business as Hyatt House Fishkill, removed Cynthia Rodriguez’s action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Rodriguez’s complaint alleged that she was injured because of Defendant’s negligence after slipping in an indoor pool area at one of Defendant’s premises.
Defendant asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, excluding interest and costs. The complaint did not request a specific sum of money. It stated only that Plaintiff’s damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of lower courts and described serious injuries, pain, shock, mental anguish, possible permanent effects, medical expenses, and an inability to perform normal activities and duties.
Analysis
For a case removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction, the removing defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence—that is, show that it is more likely than not—that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court explained that removal statutes are construed narrowly and that doubts about removal are resolved against keeping the case in federal court.
The court held that Defendant failed to meet that burden. Defendant relied on the general injury allegations in the complaint and made a conclusory assertion that the damages exceeded $75,000. Defendant did not provide additional written information about the amount in controversy, and the state-court docket also contained no such information. The court therefore could not determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount had been satisfied.
Disposition
The court concluded that removal was improper and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess. The Clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to that court and close the federal action. All pending matters were terminated. Judge Philip M. Halpern did not decide the merits of Rodriguez’s negligence claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.