Herlihy v. Hyatt Corporation
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-10885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Herlihy v. Hyatt Corporation, Judge Vyskocil remanded the case because Hyatt did not show that more than $75,000 was at stake.
Cara Herlihy and the defendants were affected. The federal court will not hear the case because Hyatt did not establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the case was returned to New York Supreme Court for further proceedings. The opinion does not decide whether any defendant is liable for Herlihy’s alleged injuries or whether Blue breached the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Herlihy v. Hyatt Corporation, Cara Herlihy alleged that she suffered serious injuries on a beach in the Bahamas and that Blue Illusions failed to pay a promised $15,000 settlement. She sued Hyatt Corporation, Carib Resorts, and Blue Illusions in New York state court.
Hyatt removed the case to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was in dispute. The federal court reviewed its jurisdiction after Hyatt filed a premature motion for summary judgment.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that Hyatt had not provided enough facts to show that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. The court therefore determined that it lacked jurisdiction, terminated Hyatt’s motion, and remanded the case to New York Supreme Court for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Herlihy v. Hyatt Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-10885
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
Cara Herlihy alleged that, in June 2019, she sustained serious and permanent personal injuries because of a dangerous condition on a beach at Balmoral Island in the Bahamas. She alleged injuries including disfigurement and scarring, as well as future medical expenses, possible surgery, and lost earnings.
Herlihy also alleged that she and Blue Illusions, Ltd. entered into a settlement agreement in December 2019. Under that agreement, Blue was to pay her $15,000, but she alleged that Blue never paid the settlement amount.
Herlihy sued Hyatt Corporation doing business as Grand Hyatt Baha Mar, Carib Resorts, Inc., and Blue Illusions, Ltd. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaint appeared to assert negligence claims against all defendants and a $15,000 breach-of-contract claim against Blue.
Removal and Jurisdiction
Hyatt removed the case to federal court under the diversity-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, that the amount in dispute exceed $75,000. The party removing a case has the burden of showing that this requirement is met.
Hyatt’s notice of removal stated that the case sought more than $75,000, apparently relying on the personal-injury allegations to supply the additional amount beyond the $15,000 settlement claim. But the complaint did not specify a dollar amount for the personal-injury claim, and its allegations about the injuries and future expenses were general rather than particularized.
The court explained that New York law generally prevents a personal-injury complaint from stating a specific damages amount. The same law allows a defendant to request a supplemental demand stating the total damages claimed. The court concluded that Hyatt had not used facts in its removal papers to establish a reasonable basis for finding that more than $75,000 was in controversy.
Ruling
The court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Hyatt failed to establish the required amount in controversy. Because federal law requires remand when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil remanded the case to New York Supreme Court for further proceedings.
The court also directed the Clerk to terminate Hyatt’s motion at ECF No. 19. The opinion describes that filing as a premature and improper motion for summary judgment, but the court did not decide the underlying negligence or breach-of-contract claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.