Hogue v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-04829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Hogue v. BJ’S, Judge Halpern remanded the slip-and-fall case because BJ’S did not show damages exceeded $75,000.
Debra Marie Hogue and BJ’S Wholesale Club, Inc. were affected. The federal court sent the case back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, closed the federal action, and terminated all pending matters.
What happened
Hogue v. BJ’S Wholesale Club, Inc. began in New York state court after Debra Marie Hogue alleged that she was injured in a slip-and-fall at BJ’S store. BJ’S removed the case to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states and that the dispute involved more than $75,000.
The federal court said BJ’S had to provide facts showing, more likely than not, that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. The complaint did not list a specific damages amount, and BJ’S’s reliance on a notice to admit and an alleged settlement demand did not meet that requirement. The court also noted that BJ’S did not provide documents showing a written settlement demand.
The court concluded that removal was improper and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess. Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the clerk to send the state court a copy of the order, close the federal case, and terminate all pending matters.
The detailed version
- Hogue v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-04829
- Philip Halpern
- June 23, 2022
Background
Debra Marie Hogue sued BJ’S Wholesale Club, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, alleging that she was injured after slipping and falling in BJ’S store. On June 9, 2022, BJ’S filed a notice removing the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BJ’S asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over a dispute between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The complaint did not state a specific damages amount. It alleged only that the damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of lower courts. BJ’S relied on two points to support the required amount: a notice to admit asking Hogue to admit that her damages exceeded $75,000, and an alleged settlement demand by Hogue’s counsel exceeding $75,000.
Analysis
The court explained that BJ’S had the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Because New York personal-injury complaints generally may not state a specific damages amount, BJ’S needed to provide adequate facts supporting the jurisdictional amount.
The court rejected BJ’S’s reliance on the notice to admit. Hogue objected to the notice, and BJ’S argued that the objection caused the requested amount to be treated as admitted. The court held that the objection did not establish the amount in controversy. It further stated that even a complete failure to respond to the notice would not have established that the amount exceeded $75,000.
The court also rejected the alleged settlement demand as a basis for removal. BJ’S did not submit documents containing the demand, and the state-court docket did not show a written settlement demand or other written indication of the amount in controversy. The court therefore assumed the demand was oral and noted that courts in the circuit had held that an oral settlement demand was not sufficient for removal.
Ruling
The court concluded that BJ’S failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It held that removal was improper and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess. Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the clerk to send a copy of the order to that court and close the federal action. The order also terminated all pending matters.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.