Gutierrez v. Pinzon

Background

Alfonso Gutierrez sued Luis Pinzon and New York Boom Service Corp. in the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, over a December 18, 2023 accident at West 42nd Street and 9th Avenue. The opinion states that Gutierrez, a New York resident, alleged serious bodily injuries after a truck driven by Pinzon, a New Jersey resident, and owned by New York Boom Service Corp., a business incorporated in New Jersey, collided with him.

Gutierrez’s complaint did not state a specific amount of damages. The defendants later removed the case to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain cases between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. Gutierrez moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

The opinion contains a chronological inconsistency: it states that the defendants filed their notice of removal on December 5, 2025, even though the opinion is dated June 24, 2025 and states that Gutierrez moved to remand on January 3, 2025.

Arguments

Gutierrez argued that the defendants had not alleged enough facts to support a reasonable inference that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. He also argued that removal was premature because the defendants had not used New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3017(c), which concerns requesting a supplemental demand for damages.

The defendants argued that the complaint and Gutierrez’s settlement demand established the jurisdictional amount. They relied on the alleged severe and permanent injuries, significant medical expenses, a calculation of $81,920.41 in lost earnings alone, and a total settlement demand of $950,000. The demand also referred to comparable verdicts ranging from $800,000 to $2.1 million. The defendants further argued that waiting for a response to a supplemental demand could have made removal untimely.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that diversity jurisdiction requires both complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The parties did not dispute the diversity requirement, so the dispute concerned only the amount in controversy.

The court held that the defendants met their burden of showing a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It found that the alleged severe and permanent injuries, physical and emotional pain, disability, and medical expenses supported that conclusion. The court also considered evidence outside the complaint, including Gutierrez’s settlement demand. The lost-earnings calculation alone exceeded $75,000, and the total settlement demand was $950,000.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied Gutierrez’s motion to remand. The court stated that the removal was proper. The opinion does not decide whether Gutierrez will ultimately prevail on his personal-injury claims; it addresses only whether the federal court had jurisdiction to keep the removed case based on the amount in controversy.