The Kurland Group v. Glassdoor, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-08070
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In The Kurland Group v. Glassdoor, Judge Engelmayer denied Glassdoor’s dismissal motion without prejudice and remanded the case for lack of federal jurisdiction.
The ruling affected Kurland & Associates, P.C., doing business as The Kurland Group, and Glassdoor, Inc. The federal court case was remanded to New York Supreme Court, and the court did not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute.
What happened
Kurland & Associates, P.C., doing business as The Kurland Group, sued Glassdoor, Inc. after Glassdoor allegedly refused to remove a disparaging employer review from its website. Glassdoor moved the case from New York state court to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court agreed that the parties were citizens of different states, but it found that Glassdoor had not shown a reasonable probability that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. The complaint did not request a specific amount or provide facts allowing the court to estimate the value of the claimed damages or requested removal of the review.
Judge Engelmayer ruled that the federal court lacked authority to hear the case, denied Glassdoor’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, and remanded the case to New York Supreme Court in New York County. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- The Kurland Group v. Glassdoor, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08070
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 16, 2020
Background
Glassdoor removed the case from New York Supreme Court to the Southern District of New York, relying on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain cases between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The plaintiff alleged that a supposedly disparaging employer review posted on Glassdoor’s website was false and defamatory because the plaintiff did not believe the post was written by a current or former employee. The state-court complaint sought damages and an order requiring removal of the post, but it did not state a specific amount of damages.
Jurisdictional issue
The opinion states that the parties’ complete diversity was established and uncontested: Kurland Group was identified as a New York corporation based in New York, and Glassdoor was identified as a Delaware corporation based in California. The issue was whether Glassdoor established the required amount in controversy.
A party removing a case from state court bears the burden of showing a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court explained that a removal notice must contain plausible factual allegations supporting that amount when the initial pleading does not specify damages.
Glassdoor’s removal notice quoted the governing statute, stated that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and asserted that the complaint supported that belief. The court found those statements insufficient because the complaint did not identify a specific damages amount or facts from which the court could estimate that the claimed damages would approach or exceed $75,000. The court also found no basis to measure the value of the requested order requiring removal of the post.
Disposition
The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning it lacked legal authority to hear the case. It remanded the matter to New York Supreme Court, New York County, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). It denied Glassdoor’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the motions at docket entries 18 and 30, and closed the federal case.
The ruling addressed only federal jurisdiction. It did not decide whether the plaintiff’s underlying claims were legally valid or whether Glassdoor was liable.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.