Valera v. Stores
Ana Valera v. 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.
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-05536
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Valera v. Target Stores, Judge Rochon remanded the slip-and-fall case because Target did not prove damages exceeded $75,000.
Ana Valera and the defendants are affected because the federal court will not hear the case; it is being returned to New York Supreme Court, Bronx County.
What happened
Ana Valera sued Target and several other defendants in New York state court after a slip-and-fall. Target removed the case to federal court, claiming the court had jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states.
Valera asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. The court found that Target had not shown that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000, as required for this type of federal jurisdiction. The listed special damages totaled about $12,300, and the injuries and surgery allegations alone did not provide enough evidence to reach the required amount.
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case to New York Supreme Court in Bronx County. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also said the court did not need to decide whether all parties were completely diverse.
The detailed version
- Valera v. Stores · No. 1:25-cv-05536
- Rochon
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
Ana Valera filed a slip-and-fall personal-injury lawsuit 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. in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, on February 6, 2024.
Target removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 3, 2025, relying on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction is a form of federal jurisdiction that generally requires the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000 and complete diversity among the parties. Target amended its removal notice on July 16, 2025. Valera moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court.
Amount in Controversy
The court explained that the defendant removing a case bears the burden of proving that removal is proper. Because New York law does not permit a personal-injury plaintiff to state a specific damages amount in the complaint, Target needed to provide a plausible allegation and evidence showing that the amount in controversy probably exceeded $75,000.
Valera’s complaint did not state a damages amount. Target represented that it had requested a supplemental demand for Valera’s total damages, but Target did not ask the state court to enforce that request after Valera responded with only a Bill of Particulars. The court stated that Target therefore chose to remove the case at its own risk and had to establish the amount in controversy using the available information.
The Bill of Particulars listed approximately $12,300 in special damages, substantially below $75,000. It also described multiple knee injuries and arthroscopic surgery. The court held that these injury allegations, without a specific damages amount or other supporting evidence, did not permit a reasonable finding that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court also noted that the Bill of Particulars did not allege ongoing treatment or an effect on Valera’s future ability to work and stated that she was confined to her home for approximately three days after the injuries.
The court rejected Target’s argument that Valera’s possible refusal to agree to a damages cap would establish federal jurisdiction. It found that a hypothetical refusal, even if one had occurred, would not satisfy Target’s burden without additional evidence. The court distinguished cases cited by Target because those cases included additional facts or evidence about the amount of damages.
Ruling
The court held that Target failed to prove that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. As a result, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the action. Because that finding resolved the jurisdictional issue, the court did not address whether there was complete diversity among all defendants.
The court remanded the action to the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The opinion does not state a separate disposition of Valera’s remand motion beyond ordering the remand.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.