Davidoff v. United Airlines, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-05527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Davidoff v. United Airlines, Judge Liman remanded the case but denied fees because discretionary fees did not satisfy diversity jurisdiction.
Jonathan Davidoff’s case will proceed in New York Supreme Court, New York County, rather than federal court. United Airlines was not ordered to pay Davidoff’s removal-related attorney fees.
What happened
In Davidoff v. United Airlines, Inc., Jonathan Davidoff sued over United Airlines’ cancellation of his flight and refusal to offer another flight that day. He brought breach-of-contract and New York consumer-protection claims in New York state court and requested $65,000 in damages plus fees.
United Airlines removed the case to federal court, arguing that the parties were citizens of different states and that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000 when potential attorney fees were included. The court concluded that fees available under New York General Business Law § 349 were discretionary, not guaranteed, so they could not be counted toward the jurisdictional minimum. Davidoff’s $65,000 request therefore did not meet that minimum.
Judge Liman granted the motion to remand and sent the case back to New York Supreme Court, New York County. Judge Liman denied Davidoff’s request for attorney fees because United Airlines had an objectively reasonable basis for removing the case and there was no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or delay.
The detailed version
- Davidoff v. United Airlines, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-05527
- Lewis Liman
- July 29, 2025
Background
Jonathan Davidoff was scheduled to travel on a United Airlines flight from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, California, on June 28, 2023. United canceled the flight, citing weather, and allegedly did not offer him another flight that day. Davidoff alleged that there were no relevant weather disturbances and that United used weather as an excuse to cancel the flight for financial reasons.
Davidoff filed a New York state-court action asserting breach of contract and violation of New York General Business Law § 349. The initial filing referred to $500,000 in damages, which Davidoff said was a drafting error. A corrected summons requested $65,000, interest, and attorney fees.
United removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain cases involving citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in dispute. United argued that Davidoff’s potential attorney fees should be added to the $65,000 damages request. Davidoff moved to remand the case to state court and requested fees incurred because of the removal. United did not oppose remand but opposed the fee request.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that attorney fees generally count toward the amount in controversy only when they are recoverable as a matter of right. New York General Business Law § 349 says that a court “may award” reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff. The court therefore treated those fees as discretionary rather than guaranteed and concluded that they could not be included in the jurisdictional calculation.
Because Davidoff requested $65,000—less than the required $75,000—and the necessary attorney fees could not be counted, the court remanded the case to New York Supreme Court, New York County.
The court separately considered whether to award fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which permits an award of costs and actual expenses caused by removal. The governing standard generally permits fees when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. The court found that United’s position was not wholly frivolous or unreasonable. It also found no evidence that United acted in bad faith or removed the case to harass Davidoff or delay the litigation.
Disposition
The motion to remand was GRANTED, and the case was remanded to New York Supreme Court, New York County. The motion for attorney fees was DENIED. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion docket entry.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.