Bursztein v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Background

Perla Bursztein sued Best Buy Stores, L.P. and Best Buy Co., Inc. in New York State Supreme Court. She alleged that she tripped and fell because of a dangerous condition at a Best Buy store and suffered serious injuries. Her complaint did not state a specific damages amount; it sought damages exceeding the monetary jurisdictional limits of lower New York courts.

Before filing the complaint, Bursztein sent a January 14, 2019 demand letter to Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., which the opinion identifies as the defendants’ third-party administrator. The letter demanded $450,000 to settle the claim. After the state-court complaint was filed, Bursztein served a September 18, 2019 response to the defendants’ discovery demands stating that she sought $5 million, plus interest, costs, and disbursements.

The defendants removed the action to federal court on October 14, 2019, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that the parties had different citizenship, that Bursztein was a citizen of Florida, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court also ordered the defendants to identify the partners of Best Buy Stores, L.P. and their citizenship; the defendants then confirmed that complete diversity existed.

Issue and governing rule

The issue was whether the defendants filed their notice of removal within the required 30-day period. Federal law generally gives a defendant 30 days after receiving an initial pleading that shows the case is removable. If the initial pleading does not show removability, the 30-day period begins when the defendant receives a later pleading or other paper that explicitly and clearly states a sufficient damages amount.

The court explained that the time when a case may be removable is not necessarily the same as the time when the 30-day removal period begins. Under the rule applied by the court, the removal period did not begin until a post-complaint document affirmatively and unambiguously specified an amount sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional minimum.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Bursztein’s September 18 response was the first post-complaint document that clearly specified a sufficient damages amount. The October 14 notice of removal was filed within 30 days of that response.

The court rejected Bursztein’s argument that the January 14 demand letter started the removal period when the defendants’ attorney acknowledged possessing it on August 26. The demand letter was sent before the complaint was filed, so it was not a post-complaint pleading or other paper that triggered the statutory period. The court noted that the case may have been removable earlier, but the complaint and other relevant post-complaint materials had not explicitly conveyed that fact in the manner required to start the removal clock.

Disposition

Judge Torres denied Bursztein’s motion to remand. The court also denied her request for attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), stating that the defendants’ removal was proper. The opinion states that the court would issue a separate order scheduling an initial pretrial conference.