Boyd v. Tiburcio-Lora
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-04075
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Boyd v. Tiburcio-Lora, Judge Caproni granted remand and sent the negligence case back because removal was untimely.
Terry J. Boyd, Javier Tiburcio-Lora, and Metropolitan Foods Inc.; the negligence case was returned to New York state court because the federal removal was untimely.
What happened
In Boyd v. Tiburcio-Lora, Terry J. Boyd sued Javier Tiburcio-Lora and Metropolitan Foods Inc. in New York state court, alleging negligence after a motor-vehicle collision. The defendants later removed the case to federal court.
The federal court had diversity jurisdiction because the parties were diverse and the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. But the court found that the defendants received a bill of particulars on March 23, 2021, showing $80,000 in listed special damages. That document started a 30-day deadline for removal, which ended on April 22. The defendants removed the case on May 6.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted Boyd’s motion to remand. She directed the Clerk of Court to return the case to the New York Supreme Court for New York County, terminate the open motions, and close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Boyd v. Tiburcio-Lora · No. 1:21-cv-04075
- Valerie Caproni
- June 23, 2021
Background
Terry J. Boyd sued Javier Tiburcio-Lora and Metropolitan Foods Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County. He alleged that he suffered serious personal injuries in an August 26, 2020 motor-vehicle collision involving a vehicle owned and negligently operated by the defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of damages sought.
The defendants answered on November 18, 2020, and demanded a verified bill of particulars listing Boyd’s special damages. Boyd served that bill on March 23, 2021. It listed five categories of special damages: physician expenses of $40,000, medical supplies of $10,000, X-rays of $10,000, hospital expenses of $10,000, and other expenses of $10,000. Although the bill did not add those amounts together, they totaled $80,000. Boyd later responded to a demand for relief by stating that he sought $10,000,000 in damages.
The defendants removed the case to federal court on May 6, 2021, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Boyd moved to remand, arguing that the removal was late.
Legal standard
A defendant generally must remove a state-court case within 30 days after receiving a pleading or other qualifying paper showing that the case is removable. When the initial complaint does not make the amount in controversy clear, a later paper in the state proceeding can start the 30-day removal period. The court also explained that the paper must explicitly specify the damages sought, and that federal courts interpret the removal statute narrowly, resolving doubts against removal.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the complaint’s general references to serious injuries and substantial expenses did not show that more than $75,000 was at stake. The March 23 bill of particulars did provide sufficient notice because its five listed categories of special damages totaled $80,000. The 30-day removal period therefore began on March 23 and ended on April 22. Because the defendants removed the case on May 6, their removal was untimely.
Disposition
The court granted Boyd’s motion to remand. The Clerk of Court was directed to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County, terminate all open motions, and close the federal case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.