Perez v. Ovidiu Apostol
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-07159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Perez v. Apostol, Judge Schofield remanded the case to state court because the removal filing did not establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
The defendants’ attempt to move the case to federal court was unsuccessful. The case was returned to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, and the federal case was closed.
What happened
In Perez v. Ovidiu Apostol, the defendants moved the case from state court to federal court. The federal court reviewed whether the filing properly showed that it had authority to hear the case based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount at issue.
The court found that the filing did not provide the defendants’ citizenship when the lawsuit began, Trans-Alliance Inc.’s principal place of business, or facts showing Ovidiu Apostol’s citizenship rather than merely his residence. It also did not provide adequate facts showing that more than $75,000 was at stake.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the matter be remanded to state court, directed the Clerk to send the order to the New York Supreme Court in Bronx County, and directed the Clerk to close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Ovidiu Apostol · No. 1:22-cv-07159
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a notice of removal on August 23, 2022, seeking to move the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice apparently relied on diversity jurisdiction, which permits a federal court to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Court’s Analysis
The court identified several problems with the notice of removal. It did not allege the citizenship of the defendants when the action began, the principal place of business of Trans-Alliance Inc., or the citizenship—not merely the residency—of Ovidiu Apostol. The court explained that diversity must exist both when the state-court action begins and when removal is sought, and that citizenship depends on domicile rather than residence alone.
The notice also did not allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s reference to damages exceeding the limits of lower New York courts did not establish the federal amount requirement. It also concluded that allegations of serious injuries and economic loss exceeding basic economic loss under New York Insurance Law did not establish a dollar amount above $75,000.
Disposition
The court ordered that the matter be remanded to state court. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail a certified copy of the order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, and to close the federal case. Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.