Marin v. Sephora USA, Inc.

Background

Michelle Marin filed a personal-injury action against Sephora USA, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court on October 1, 2018. She alleged that, while shopping at Sephora’s store at 555 Broadway in New York, a Sephora employee caused her to fall and suffer injuries because of Sephora’s negligence. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages, consistent with New York law governing personal-injury complaints.

Sephora initially sought information about the amount of damages and later made additional requests for discovery. Marin’s responses did not provide a damages figure. After changes in Marin’s legal representation and delays involving her prior counsel, Marin sent a response on March 20, 2020, stating that she sought $5 million. The response was filed electronically in state court on May 4, 2020. Sephora removed the case to federal court on May 6, 2020, based on diversity of citizenship.

Arguments on remand

Marin moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. She argued that Sephora violated the federal removal deadlines by removing more than one year after the action began and more than thirty days after receiving notice that the case was removable.

Sephora acknowledged that its removal occurred more than one year after the state action began. It argued that Marin’s delayed responses constituted bad faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) and therefore created an exception to the one-year deadline. Sephora also argued that its thirty-day removal period did not begin until the response was electronically filed on May 4, 2020. The parties agreed that Marin’s March 20 response was the document that first showed the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 federal threshold, but they disputed when Sephora received that response by mail.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction permits removal when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Although diversity of citizenship was not disputed, federal law generally requires a diversity case to be removed within one year after the state action begins. The exception applies if the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal, including by deliberately failing to disclose the amount in controversy.

The court held that Sephora did not meet its burden of proving bad faith by clear and convincing evidence. It found that the conduct of Marin’s former counsel more closely resembled negligence than strategic conduct intended to prevent removal. The court noted that the record showed repeated failures to provide discovery, problems during the transition to new counsel, and other indications of neglect. It also considered significant that Sephora had allowed substantial portions of the one-year period to pass before pursuing the damages information and did not make a formal motion to compel until after the one-year deadline.

Because the court found no bad-faith exception to the one-year deadline, it concluded that the dispute about when Sephora received the mailed response did not matter. The court therefore did not need to decide whether removal was timely under the thirty-day rule.

Disposition

The court granted Marin’s motion to remand the matter to the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York. It directed the Clerk to remove the pending motion from the docket and close the federal court file.