Romero v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-02364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Romero v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP: Judge Halpern remanded the case because Wal-Mart Stores East, LP did not adequately show that more than $75,000 was in dispute.
Norma Romero’s case was sent back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, and the federal action against Wal-Mart Stores East, LP was closed.
What happened
Romero v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP concerns Norma Romero’s state-court lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores East, LP after she allegedly slipped on water from an ice machine on Wal-Mart’s property. She filed the case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange.
Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court, claiming that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because the dispute exceeded $75,000 and the parties were citizens of different states. Romero’s complaint did not state the amount of damages. Wal-Mart said Romero’s lawyer had conveyed a $300,000 damages amount, but Wal-Mart did not provide the court with a copy of that response.
Judge Halpern ruled that Wal-Mart had not shown by the required evidence that more than $75,000 was in dispute. He remanded the case to the New York state court, directed the Clerk to send that court a copy of the order, and closed the federal action.
The detailed version
- Romero v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP · No. 7:22-cv-02364
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
Norma Romero filed a complaint against Wal-Mart Stores East, LP in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, on or about August 21, 2021. She alleged that she was injured after slipping on water that had dripped from an ice machine on Wal-Mart’s property in Monroe, New York. The complaint did not demand a specific amount of damages.
On March 23, 2022, Wal-Mart filed a notice seeking to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Wal-Mart asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and complete diversity existed between the parties. Wal-Mart stated that Romero’s counsel had conveyed a response to a state-law damages demand seeking $300,000, but Wal-Mart did not attach that response to its notice of removal. None of the other attached documents stated the amount of damages, and the state-court docket also did not contain a written indication of the amount in controversy.
Court’s Analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. The party seeking federal jurisdiction has the burden of providing facts or evidence showing that this threshold is met. Removal statutes are narrowly interpreted, and doubts are resolved against removal.
The court concluded that Wal-Mart’s unsupported statement about the alleged $300,000 response was not enough to establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Because Wal-Mart did not satisfy its burden, the removal was improper.
Disposition
The court 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. The opinion did not decide the merits of Romero’s injury claim.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court resolved whether federal jurisdiction supported removal without deciding the underlying injury claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.