Valera v. Stores
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-05536
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Valera v. Stores, Judge Rochon ordered Target to provide more support for removal and diversity jurisdiction or face remand.
Target Corporation was required to provide additional jurisdictional information and briefing. Ana Valera could respond, and the case could be remanded to state court if Target failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. The order did not resolve the underlying claims against any defendant.
What happened
In Valera v. Stores, Target Corporation moved the case from New York state court to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake. Target said its co-defendants were only nominal defendants because Target was responsible for maintaining the store’s interior.
The court found that Target had not provided enough information to support federal jurisdiction. Target had not supplied the lease, explained the role of the other defendants, stated where it was incorporated or headquartered, or specifically stated where Ana Valera was domiciled.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Target to file an amended removal notice and a brief by July 14, 2025. Valera could respond by July 18, 2025. The court said the case would be sent back to state court if Target could not sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Valera v. Stores · No. 1:25-cv-05536
- Rochon
- July 8, 2025
Background
Ana Valera brought this action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, against Target Stores, Target Corporation, Target Department Stores, Inc., Bronx Terminal Market Preservation Association, Inc., BTM Development Partners, LLC, Related Management Company L.P., The Related Companies Inc., and Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market, Inc. On July 3, 2025, Target Corporation removed the case to the Southern District of New York.
Target relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain cases involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Target described its co-defendants as “nominal defendants,” meaning parties whose presence should be disregarded for jurisdictional purposes because, under applicable state law, no claim could be stated against them. Target represented that it leased the premises from BTM and was responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and repairing the interior of the Target store where the alleged incident occurred.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the party claiming nominal status bears the burden of proving it. Target did not attach the lease to its removal notice, address defendants other than BTM, or provide case law addressing similar circumstances involving property owners, lessors, and lessees. The court also found that Target had not affirmatively stated its place of incorporation or principal place of business. Although Target identified Valera as a citizen of New York, it did not specifically state where she was domiciled.
Order
The court ordered Target, no later than July 14, 2025, to file an amended notice of removal that included the lease, stated Target’s place of incorporation and principal place of business, and clarified Valera’s domicile. Target also had to file a letter brief of no more than three pages supporting its position about diversity jurisdiction and nominal defendants in similar circumstances. Valera could file a response of no more than three pages by July 18, 2025. The court stated that the case would be remanded to state court if Target could not sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.