Reed v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-09701
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Reed v. Marvin, Judge Halpern remanded the case to state court because removal lacked adequate jurisdictional support.
The order returned Brittney Reed’s action against Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., LLC, Interstate + Lakeland Lumber Corporation, Tramec Holdings LLC doing business as Tramec LLC, and Schneider National Carriers, Inc. to New York state court. It prevented the case from proceeding in federal court based on the asserted diversity jurisdiction, without resolving the underlying claims.
What happened
In Reed v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., LLC, Marvin removed Brittney Reed’s personal-injury action from New York state court to federal court. Marvin claimed that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The federal court found that Marvin had not adequately identified the citizenship of the members of Tramec Holdings LLC. The court also found that Marvin offered only a bare statement that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, without supporting information.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that removal was improper and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess. The federal court did not decide the underlying personal-injury claims.
The detailed version
- Reed v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., LLC · No. 7:22-cv-09701
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
Brittney Reed, both as administrator of Joseph Reed’s estate and individually, sued Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., LLC; Interstate + Lakeland Lumber Corporation; Tramec Holdings LLC doing business as Tramec LLC; and Schneider National Carriers, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess. Marvin filed a notice removing the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Marvin asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when the amount at stake exceeds the statutory threshold.
Analysis
The court explained that a limited liability company’s citizenship is based on the citizenship of all its members. The notice of removal did not identify the citizenship of Tramec Holdings LLC’s members, as required by the federal court’s local rule. The court therefore found that Marvin had not adequately alleged complete diversity of citizenship.
The court separately concluded that Marvin had not shown that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. New York law did not allow the personal-injury complaint to state a specific damages amount, and the complaint merely alleged that damages exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of lower state courts. Marvin’s notice of removal stated, without supporting information, that the amount demanded in good faith exceeded $75,000. The state-court docket also contained no written indication of the amount in controversy.
Because Marvin did not establish either complete diversity or the required amount in controversy, the court concluded that removal was improper. The court’s decision addressed federal jurisdiction and removal, not the merits of the underlying claims.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered that the action be REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess. The Clerk was directed to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.