Williams v. Samek Trucking
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-08725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. Samek Trucking, Judge Liman found a reasonable probability that damages exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction.
The ruling concerns Williams and the defendants in the removed federal case, particularly whether the amount in controversy met the threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
What happened
Williams v. Samek Trucking involved the defendants’ removal of the case to federal court. At an initial pretrial conference, the court asked about the defendants’ statement that more than $75,000 was at stake.
Plaintiff’s counsel said that Williams did not dispute removal and was seeking more than $75,000. Counsel also described severe physical injuries, multiple herniations, surgery, and planned claims for pain and suffering and lost earnings.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that there was a reasonable probability that the damages met the amount required for diversity jurisdiction. The order did not decide liability, the amount of damages, or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Samek Trucking · No. 1:21-cv-08725
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background
The court held an initial pretrial conference on August 15, 2022. The defendants had removed the case to federal court and stated in their notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court asked about the basis for that assertion.
Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Williams did not dispute removal and was seeking more than $75,000 in damages. Counsel also represented that Williams suffered severe physical injuries in the accident, had been diagnosed with multiple herniations, and had undergone surgery. The damages sought would include compensation for physical injury, pain and suffering, and lost earnings.
Ruling
The court stated that it was satisfied there was a “reasonable probability” that Williams’s damages met the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. The order addressed that jurisdictional requirement only; it did not decide the defendants’ liability, the amount of damages, or the merits of the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.