Cruz v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC

Background

Nelson Cruz filed a personal-injury negligence action in New York Supreme Court against The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC and CCES Little Neck Realty LLC. Cruz alleged that he was injured after tripping and falling on the defendants’ premises. His complaint did not state a specific damages amount, but after receiving a demand under New York law, he claimed $2,000,000 in damages for each cause of action.

Stop & Shop was identified as a Delaware limited liability company whose sole member was a Maryland corporation. The opinion states that Cruz was a citizen and resident of New York. The court treated CCES as a non-diverse defendant based on the circumstances described in the opinion, including that Stop & Shop could not remove the case while CCES remained a defendant.

CCES moved for summary judgment in state court, arguing that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no responsibility to control, operate, maintain, or repair the premises and therefore owed Cruz no duty. Cruz opposed that motion and argued, among other things, that it was premature because discovery was incomplete and factual disputes remained. On December 16, 2019, the state court granted summary judgment for CCES and dismissed CCES from the case.

Four days later, Stop & Shop removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear qualifying disputes between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. Cruz moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court.

Arguments and Legal Standard

Stop & Shop removed the case within 30 days after CCES was dismissed, which was when the case became removable according to the court. But the removal occurred more than one year after Cruz started the lawsuit. Under the removal statute, a court may excuse that one-year deadline only when the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.

Cruz argued that Stop & Shop’s removal was untimely and that Stop & Shop had not shown bad faith. Stop & Shop argued that Cruz’s three requests for extensions to oppose CCES’s state-court motion delayed the case and prevented removal within the one-year period. The extensions were agreed to by the defendants.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that it had diversity jurisdiction because the parties were completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It then addressed whether the late removal could be excused under the bad-faith exception.

The court concluded that Stop & Shop did not meet its burden of proving bad faith. Cruz had named CCES in the original complaint, actively litigated against CCES, opposed its summary-judgment motion, and did not amend the complaint to delay the case or defeat removal. The court held that the three extensions, without more, did not show a specific desire to prevent removal—particularly because Stop & Shop had agreed to them.

The court emphasized that removal rules must be strictly applied and doubts must be resolved in favor of returning a case to state court. It therefore found that Stop & Shop’s removal was untimely even though it was filed within 30 days after the case became removable.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Cruz’s motion to remand. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and remand the case to state court. The opinion decided the timing and jurisdictional issue; it did not decide whether Cruz’s negligence claims were valid.