The Brand Guy LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-09567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In The Brand Guy LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Judge Halpern remanded the case because the amount in dispute was not adequately established.
The Brand Guy LLC and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; the case will proceed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland, rather than the federal court.
What happened
The Brand Guy LLC sued Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company in New York state court over the alleged conversion of business property and inventory. Liberty Mutual removed the case to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $805,000 was at issue.
The federal court found that the state-court filing did not specify the amount sought. It also found that Liberty Mutual had improperly relied on allegations from an earlier, different action involving breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. Those allegations did not establish that this conversion case exceeded the $75,000 requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction.
The court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland, and directed the Clerk to close the federal case. Judge Halpern also concluded that maritime jurisdiction alone could not support the case after diversity jurisdiction was not established.
The detailed version
- The Brand Guy LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company · No. 7:25-cv-09567
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 19, 2025
Background
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company removed The Brand Guy LLC’s state-court action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland, to the Southern District of New York. The state-court filing alleged that Liberty Mutual converted The Brand Guy’s tangible business property and inventory stored at the insured premises. It did not state a specific dollar amount, instead seeking the full value of the property in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of lower courts.
Liberty Mutual asserted that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because the parties were completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It specifically claimed that more than $805,000 was at issue, relying on language in an earlier related proceeding. Liberty Mutual also asserted federal maritime and admiralty jurisdiction.
Analysis
A defendant removing a case must establish that federal jurisdiction exists. For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, and the removing party must show by a preponderance of the evidence—a showing that the amount is more likely than not—that this threshold is met.
The Court held that Liberty Mutual did not satisfy that burden. The state-court filing did not identify the amount sought, and Liberty Mutual offered no adequate written evidence supporting its $805,000 allegation. The Court found that the claims and remedies in the earlier related proceeding were different from those in this case: the earlier proceeding involved breach of contract and declaratory judgment, while this case involved conversion. The state-court docket also contained no written indication of the amount in controversy.
Because diversity jurisdiction was not established, the Court also concluded that maritime or admiralty jurisdiction alone could not support removal under the traditional rule it adopted.
Disposition
The Court remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland. It directed the Clerk to send the order to that court, close the federal action, and terminate all pending matters. Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.