Davis v. Espinal-Vasquez

Background

Fred Davis, III sued Abdel Jose Espinal-Vazquez and ND Logistics, LLC for injuries and other damages from a September 1, 2018 motor vehicle accident. Davis alleged that his car was hit by two tires that fell from a truck driven by Espinal-Vazquez while he was working for ND Logistics.

Davis filed the case in the New York Supreme Court for Bronx County on August 2, 2021. The complaint stated that he had suffered severe and permanent injuries and damages exceeding the jurisdictional limits of lower courts, but it did not state a specific damages amount. On September 9, 2021, Davis served a bill of particulars and an ad damnum—a statement of the damages requested—seeking $5 million. The defendants removed the case to federal court on September 20, 2021, relying on diversity jurisdiction, which permits federal jurisdiction when the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Motion and arguments

Davis moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that his March 17, 2021, pre-suit settlement demand for $500,000 showed that the defendants knew the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. In his view, the defendants therefore had to remove the case within 30 days after receiving the complaint, making the September 20 removal untimely.

The defendants argued that the removal deadline did not begin when they received the complaint because the complaint did not specifically state the amount of damages sought. They argued that the deadline began when they received Davis’s September 9 bill of particulars and ad damnum.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that federal law generally gives a defendant 30 days to remove a case after receiving an initial pleading that makes federal jurisdiction apparent. If the initial pleading does not make the case removable, a second 30-day period begins when the defendant receives a later pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which removability can first be determined.

The court applied the Second Circuit’s rule that the removal deadline begins when the plaintiff serves a document that explicitly specifies the amount of monetary damages sought. Davis’s complaint stated only that his damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of New York’s lower courts. The court concluded that this established, at most, that Davis sought more than $25,000, not more than the federal $75,000 threshold. The complaint therefore did not start the first removal deadline.

The court held that Davis’s September 9 bill of particulars and ad damnum, which sought $5 million, triggered the later removal deadline. Because the defendants removed the case on September 20—within 30 days—the removal was timely.

The court rejected Davis’s argument that the pre-suit settlement demand triggered the removal period. The court reasoned that accepting that argument would have required the defendants to remove the case before Davis filed it in state court. The court also found that the cases Davis cited addressed whether the amount in controversy was sufficient after removal, not when the removal deadline began.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Davis’s Motion to Remand. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion, and the court scheduled a telephonic status conference for July 27, 2022.