Thomas v. Burlington Stores, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-08520
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Thomas v. Burlington Stores, Judge Halpern remanded the case because defendants did not adequately show more than $75,000 was in controversy.
Anthony Thomas, Burlington Stores, Inc., and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation. The case was returned to New York state court, and the federal action was closed; the order did not decide the underlying personal-injury claims.
What happened
In Thomas v. Burlington Stores, Inc., Burlington Stores, Inc. and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation moved the case from New York state court to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake. Anthony Thomas’s complaint concerned injuries from a fall in defendants’ store but did not state a specific damages amount.
The court explained that the defendants had to show, based on the available evidence, that the amount in dispute was more than $75,000. The defendants relied on allegations about Thomas’s injuries, surgery, treatment, disability, and lost activities, but provided no written information showing the value of his claim.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that the defendants had not met their burden. He ordered the case sent back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, and directed the federal clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Burlington Stores, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-08520
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Burlington Stores, Inc. and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation removed Anthony Thomas’s case from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction based on the parties being citizens of different states, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Thomas’s complaint alleged that he was injured when he fell in defendants’ store. It described serious injuries and related consequences, including surgery, physical therapy, disability, confinement to bed and home, medical expenses, and inability to engage in his usual occupation or activities. Because New York law does not permit a personal-injury complaint to state a specific damages amount, the complaint said only that the damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of lower courts.
Issue
The issue was whether the defendants established that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, as required for diversity jurisdiction and removal under the cited federal statutes.
Analysis
The court stated that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the required amount in controversy. When the complaint does not state a specific amount, the removing defendants must provide facts showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount is more than $75,000. The court also noted that removal laws are narrowly interpreted and doubts are resolved against removal.
The defendants argued that the allegations about Thomas’s injuries and losses logically meant that the claim exceeded $75,000. But they supplied no written indication of the amount in controversy. The state-court docket likewise contained no such information. The court concluded that the defendants’ unsupported assertion was insufficient to meet their burden.
Disposition
The court concluded that the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that removal was therefore improper. It remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. The clerk was directed to send that court a copy of the order, close the federal action, and terminate all pending matters.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.