Baptiste v. ABM
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-06626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Baptiste v. ABM, Judge Woods remanded the case to state court because ABM did not establish the required amount for diversity jurisdiction.
The order returned Baptiste’s case against ABM Aviation Inc. to New York State Supreme Court because ABM did not establish federal diversity jurisdiction. It did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Baptiste v. ABM, Edler Jean Baptiste filed a case against ABM Aviation Inc. in New York Supreme Court. ABM removed the case to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The federal court ordered ABM to explain why the case should not be returned to state court. ABM relied on assumptions and possible ways the case’s value might exceed $75,000, but the court found that speculation was not enough.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ruled that ABM had not shown that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to New York Supreme Court. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Baptiste v. ABM · No. 1:20-cv-06626
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
Edler Jean Baptiste began this action pro se in New York Supreme Court on July 27, 2020, against ABM Aviation Inc. On August 19, 2020, ABM petitioned to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ABM asserted diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain cases between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in controversy.
ABM stated that Baptiste was a citizen and resident of New York, that ABM was a Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas, and that, based on information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court found no plausible basis for that estimate in the removal papers and ordered ABM to show why the case should not be remanded to state court.
Jurisdictional standard
For a removed case, the defendant bears the burden of showing that removal is proper. When the complaint does not state the amount in controversy, the defendant must provide competent proof establishing a reasonable probability that the claim exceeds $75,000. Removal laws are strictly construed against removal, and doubts are resolved in favor of returning the case to state court.
Court’s reasoning
ABM conceded that the $75,000 threshold was not apparent from the complaint. In response to the court’s order, ABM asked the court to assume facts that were not alleged, including assumptions about how many hours and days Baptiste worked. ABM also described ways the damages could possibly reach the jurisdictional threshold. The court declined to establish federal jurisdiction through speculation and concluded that ABM had not shown, by the required standard, that removal was proper.
Disposition
The court held that ABM had not established subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, without delay. The order addressed only federal jurisdiction and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Judge
The order was issued by Gregory H. Woods, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.