Soderblom v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-00492
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Soderblom v. CVS Pharmacy, Judge Halpern remanded the case because CVS did not establish the amount required for federal jurisdiction.
Edwina Soderblom, Urstadt Biddle Properties, Inc. d/b/a Towne Centre at Somers, and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; the case returns to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester.
What happened
Soderblom v. Urstadt Biddle Properties, Inc. and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. began as a personal-injury lawsuit in New York state court. Edwina Soderblom alleged that she was injured because of uneven or broken pavement while using a shopping cart.
CVS removed the case to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that the case could involve more than $75,000. But the complaint did not state a specific damages amount, and CVS provided no other information showing that the amount exceeded $75,000.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that federal jurisdiction had not been established, held that removal was improper, and remanded the action to the New York state court where it began. The federal case was closed.
The detailed version
- Soderblom v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc · No. 7:21-cv-00492
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
Edwina Soderblom filed a personal-injury action against Urstadt Biddle Properties, Inc., doing business as Towne Centre at Somers, and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. She alleged that she was injured while walking on uneven or broken pavement with a shopping cart because of the defendants’ negligence. The complaint did not state a specific amount of damages, as New York law limits how a personal-injury complaint may describe the amount sought.
CVS removed the action to the federal court under the federal removal statutes. CVS asserted that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because it was a citizen of Rhode Island, Urstadt was a citizen of Maryland, and Soderblom was a citizen of New York. CVS also asserted that the amount in controversy “could exceed” $75,000 if Soderblom’s allegations were proven.
Jurisdictional analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. The party seeking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that requirement is met. When the complaint does not state a specific amount, the removing defendant must provide facts supporting a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 is at stake.
The Court found that CVS offered no support beyond the complaint’s allegations that Soderblom suffered serious and permanent injuries, pain and mental anguish, hospitalization, medical treatment, and incapacity. The Court also found no written discovery response or other document in either the federal or state-court record specifying the amount in controversy. It therefore concluded that the defendants had not met their burden.
Ruling
The Court held that removal from state court was improper because the amount-in-controversy requirement had not been established and no paper specifying the damages amount had been provided. It remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, directed that a copy of the Order be sent there, and closed the federal case. The Order addressed federal jurisdiction and removal; it did not decide the underlying negligence claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.