Justino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-02130
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Justino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Judge Halpern remanded the case because Wal-Mart did not establish the amount required for federal jurisdiction.
Tia Justino and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; the case proceeds in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange rather than federal court.
What happened
In Justino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Tia Justino sued her former employer in New York state court, alleging discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and constructive discharge.
Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the damages would exceed $75,000. The court found that Wal-Mart had not provided enough evidence to establish that amount, and no later document specified the damages sought.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that the removal was improper and remanded the case to the New York Supreme Court in Orange County. The federal action was closed, and pending matters were terminated.
The detailed version
- Justino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-02130
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Tia Justino filed a complaint against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange. She alleged that, while employed by Wal-Mart, she experienced unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment that ultimately led to her constructive discharge. She sought damages to be determined at trial, along with interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.
Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court under the diversity-jurisdiction statutes. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs. Wal-Mart argued that complete diversity existed and that Justino could recover more than $75,000, including lost wages, other employment-related damages, front pay, and punitive damages.
Analysis
The court explained that the party invoking diversity jurisdiction—in this case, Wal-Mart—had the burden to show a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Justino’s complaint described economic and physical or emotional damages, stress and anxiety, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and other non-pecuniary losses, but did not state a specific dollar amount.
The court found that Wal-Mart offered no support beyond its assertion that the damages would substantially exceed $75,000. The court also found no discovery response or other document in the state-court record that specified the amount in controversy. Because Wal-Mart failed to meet its burden and no later paper had started the 30-day removal period, the court held that removal was improper.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange. The Clerk was directed to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal action. All pending matters were terminated.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.