Brown v. Richer-Guinard
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-05914
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brown v. Richer-Guinard, Judge Nathan denied Brown’s motion to remand her personal-injury case, finding diversity jurisdiction and a sufficient amount in controversy.
The ruling kept Shana L. Brown’s personal-injury action against Samuel Richer-Guinard and GEICO in federal court rather than returning it to state court.
What happened
In Brown v. Richer-Guinard, Shana L. Brown asked the federal court to send her personal-injury lawsuit back to New York state court. The lawsuit arose from an alleged 2016 car accident and named Samuel Richer-Guinard and Government Employees Insurance Company as defendants.
The court found that the amount at stake could reasonably exceed $75,000, even though Brown estimated her damages at $74,999. It also found that the parties were citizens of different states or countries: Brown was a New York citizen, Richer-Guinard was a Canadian citizen, and GEICO was a Maryland citizen.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Brown’s motion to remand. The case therefore remained in federal court, and the court rescheduled the initial pretrial conference.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Richer-Guinard · No. 1:19-cv-05914
- Alison Nathan
- June 1, 2020
Background
Shana L. Brown brought a personal-injury action against Samuel Richer-Guinard and Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). The action arose from an alleged car accident on July 21, 2016. Brown originally filed the case in New York Supreme Court. It was previously removed to federal court and then remanded by agreement of the parties.
After the case returned to state court, Richer-Guinard demanded a statement of the amount of damages Brown was seeking. Brown responded that her best estimate at that time was $74,999. Richer-Guinard then removed the case to federal court again, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Brown moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to return the case to state court.
Analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, excluding interest and costs. The defendants had to show a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded that threshold and support their allegations with more likely-than-not evidence.
The court concluded that the amount requirement was met. Although Brown estimated her damages at $74,999, the court viewed that estimate as relevant but not controlling. It reasoned that personal-injury damages generally cannot be calculated precisely and that Brown had not signed a binding agreement limiting her recovery to less than $75,000. The defendants’ evidence, including information about Brown’s earnings and her bill of particulars, also supported a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
The court also found complete diversity. It stated that Brown was a citizen of New York, Richer-Guinard was a citizen of Canada, and GEICO was a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland, making GEICO a Maryland citizen for diversity purposes.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Brown’s motion to remand. The court rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for July 10, 2020, and directed the parties to submit the required joint letter and proposed case-management plan before the conference.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.