Almonte v. Target Corporation

Background

Alquidania Almonte filed a personal-injury lawsuit against Target Corporation in state court after allegedly slipping, tripping, and falling in Target’s store. She alleged serious injuries, continuing pain, inability to work, and a need for medical care. Her complaint did not state a specific damages amount. Instead, it said that her damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of lower courts and the minimum amount required for courts with concurrent jurisdiction.

After Target served a demand under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3017(c), Almonte responded that she sought $10 million, plus costs, interest, and disbursements. Target then filed a notice of removal in federal court on December 3, 2019, and notified Almonte the next day. Target did not file the removal notice with the state court until January 6, 2020.

Almonte filed her first motion to remand on January 3, 2020. The court denied that motion without prejudice because she had not requested a required pre-motion conference. After a conference, she filed a second motion to remand on January 29, 2020.

Remand deadline

The court held that a motion to remand based on a defect other than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be filed within 30 days after the notice of removal is filed in federal court. Because Target filed the notice in federal court on December 3, 2019, Almonte’s motion was due January 2, 2020. The court treated January 3—the filing date of the first motion—as the relevant date, even though the motion was dated and served January 2. The court therefore found the motion one day late.

The court recognized that it had discretion to treat a late motion as timely in exceptional circumstances, such as an electronic filing problem or another circumstance showing a good-faith effort to meet the deadline. It declined to do so because Almonte offered no explanation for the late filing and did not argue that technical or procedural difficulties prevented timely filing.

Delay in filing the state-court notice

Almonte argued that Target’s failure to promptly file the removal notice with the state court required remand. The court held that this was a non-jurisdictional procedural defect subject to the 30-day deadline, so Almonte had waived the argument by filing late.

The court also ruled that the argument would fail even if it had not been waived. Target filed the state-court notice 34 days after filing in federal court, but Almonte received notice one day after the federal filing, the state court took no action during the delay, and Almonte claimed no prejudice. On those facts, the court did not find that Target had failed to file the notice “promptly.”

Unresolved removal issue

The court did not decide whether the complaint’s unusual language was specific enough to start the 30-day period for removal. The court described the language as apparently designed to indicate that the claimed damages exceeded the federal diversity-jurisdiction threshold without expressly stating a dollar amount or referring to federal courts.

Target argued that the language was insufficient under Second Circuit precedent requiring a paper to explicitly specify the amount of damages sought. Almonte argued that the language explicitly disclosed that she sought more than the federal jurisdictional minimum. Because the court resolved the remand motion on timeliness grounds, it did not decide which interpretation was correct.

Fees and costs

Target requested fees and costs based on its argument that the remand motion was frivolous. The court denied that request. It stated that the motion was unsuccessful but not frivolous because Almonte’s counsel presented colorable and creative arguments. The court therefore denied Target’s application for fees and costs.

Disposition

The court denied Almonte’s second motion to remand. It also denied Target’s request for costs connected with the motion to remand. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 18.