Fayet v. Target Corporation

Background

Mary J. Fayet filed a personal-injury action in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, on July 15, 2019. She alleged that she slipped and fell at a Target store on May 1, 2019, suffering serious and permanent injuries. The complaint alleged joint and concurrent negligence by Target Corporation and Princess Andrews, whom the opinion describes as a Target employee and store manager at the time.

The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2020. They relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires that each plaintiff be from a different state than each defendant and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. The complaint alleged monetary damages but did not state the amount. After the defendants requested a statement of damages, Fayet did not respond. The defendants argued that her silence after a letter offering to cap damages at $75,000 showed that the amount in controversy exceeded that amount.

Fayet moved to remand, arguing that removal was untimely and that complete diversity was absent. The defendants opposed remand and moved for sanctions, arguing that Andrews had been fraudulently joined—that is, named only to defeat federal jurisdiction because there was no possible claim against her.

Timeliness of Removal

Federal law generally requires removal within 30 days after the defendant receives the initial pleading. If the initial pleading does not make the case removable, a later amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper may start a new 30-day period when it first shows that the case is removable.

The court held that the defendants’ April 22, 2020 removal was premature. The defendants had not received a paper from Fayet showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Fayet’s failure to respond to the defendants’ letter proposing a damages cap did not satisfy the statute’s requirement that the defendants receive an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper. The court also rejected the argument that Fayet’s later remand motion could cure the premature removal. The court therefore granted remand on this ground.

Diversity and Alleged Fraudulent Joinder

The court also granted remand because complete diversity was lacking. The defendants conceded that Fayet and Andrews were both New York residents. They asked the court to disregard Andrews under the fraudulent-joinder doctrine.

The court explained that the removing defendants had to show by clear and convincing evidence either outright fraud in the pleadings or no possibility that Fayet could state a claim against Andrews under New York law. The court was required to resolve factual and legal issues in Fayet’s favor and to apply a less demanding review than would apply to a motion to dismiss.

The court concluded that the defendants had not met that heavy burden. Fayet’s complaint alleged that Target and Andrews caused a dangerous condition at the store and had created it or knew, or should have known, about it. Although an employer is generally responsible for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment, the court stated that recovery against an employee such as Andrews was not impossible under New York law. The court declined to decide the merits of Andrews’s involvement in the accident during the jurisdictional inquiry.

Sanctions and Disposition

Because the court concluded that Andrews was not fraudulently joined, it denied the defendants’ motion for sanctions. The court granted Fayet’s motion to remand, directed the Clerk of Court to return the case to the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and closed the federal case. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs and expenses. This order resolved Docket Entry Nos. 6 and 18.