Frederick v. Eliseo Celaya Alvarado and Profi Transport Corp.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-09442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frederick v. Alvarado, Judge Halpern ordered defendants to document the amount in controversy or face remand to state court.
The order affects the defendants, who must provide the identified paper to support federal jurisdiction, and Henry J. Frederick, whose case may be returned to state court if they do not do so.
What happened
Henry J. Frederick sued Eliseo Celaya Alvarado and Profi Transport Corp. in state court. The defendants moved the case to federal court, claiming that the parties were from different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The complaint did not request a specific amount of money. The defendants asserted that a paper served on November 10, 2025, established that the amount exceeded $75,000, but they did not provide that paper. The state-court docket also did not show the amount sought.
Judge Philip M. Halpern allowed the defendants to file the November 10 paper by November 20, 2025. He stated that if they did not file it, the court would direct that the case be returned to state court.
The detailed version
- Frederick v. Eliseo Celaya Alvarado and Profi Transport Corp. · No. 7:25-cv-09442
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 13, 2025
Background
Henry J. Frederick filed this action in state court. On November 12, 2025, Eliseo Celaya Alvarado and Profi Transport Corp. removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain civil cases involving citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in dispute.
Frederick’s complaint did not state a specific amount of damages. It said only that he sought damages exceeding the jurisdictional limits of lower courts. The defendants’ notice of removal alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because damages had been specified in a paper served and received on November 10, 2025. The defendants did not attach or otherwise provide that paper. The court also reviewed the state-court electronic docket and found no written indication of the amount in controversy.
Court’s Analysis
Federal law requires a defendant removing a case based on diversity jurisdiction to show that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 when state-court practice does not permit a specific demand for damages. The court found that the defendants’ bare allegation was not supported by the paper they identified.
Ruling
The court allowed the defendants to supplement their notice of removal by filing the paper served on November 10, 2025, by November 20, 2025. Judge Philip M. Halpern stated that, if the defendants did not file that document by the deadline, the court would direct that the action be remanded, or returned, to the state court from which it was removed. The opinion did not itself order remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.