Gomez v. Dormont Manufacturing Company

Background

Socorro Gomez, Fernando Arellano, and Martha Guadalupe Lopez Trinidad filed a verified complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, against Dormont Manufacturing Company and 148-150 Westchester Avenue, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged that they were injured on October 2, 2019, when a stainless-steel gas connector manufactured by Dormont failed, releasing gas that ignited inside a structure owned by 148-150 Westchester Avenue, LLC. Plaintiffs asserted negligence, breach of warranty, and strict-products-liability claims against Dormont, and negligence against 148-150 Westchester Avenue, LLC.

Dormont removed the action to federal court under the federal diversity-jurisdiction and removal statutes. Dormont argued that complete diversity existed, assuming 148-150 Westchester Avenue, LLC was dismissed, and stated that Plaintiffs were residents of New York and Connecticut while Dormont was a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Dormont also asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, relying on defense counsel’s experience with other cases involving serious injuries after fires or gas explosions.

Analysis

Federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be in dispute. Because the Plaintiffs’ New York complaint did not state a specific damages amount, Dormont had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

The court held that Dormont did not meet that burden. The complaint alleged severe and continuing injuries, pain and suffering, and medical and hospital expenses, but New York law did not permit the complaint to state a specific damages amount. Dormont’s general assertion that counsel believed the amount exceeded $75,000 was insufficient for the court to find that the jurisdictional threshold was met. The court noted that Dormont could have requested a supplemental damages demand under New York law. Because the court resolved the case on the amount-in-controversy requirement, it did not address Dormont’s argument that its co-defendant should be dismissed to create complete diversity.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern concluded that Dormont failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that removal was improper. The action was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. The clerk was directed to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal action, and all pending matters were terminated.