Mejias v. Mcivery
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-09830
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Mejias v. Mcivery, Judge Halpern remanded the case because defendants did not adequately establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
Carlos Mejias’s case will proceed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange rather than in federal court. The federal case was closed, and the opinion did not resolve the underlying personal-injury claims.
What happened
Lily Transportation Corp. and Ryder Truck Rental, LT, LLT removed Carlos Mejias’s personal-injury case from New York state court to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states and more than $75,000 was at stake. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of New York.
The court said the removing defendants had to show, more likely than not, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Mejias’s complaint did not request a specific amount, and the defendants did not provide written information establishing the value of the claim. The court also explained that an oral settlement demand was not enough by itself.
Judge Halpern held that removal was improper and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange. The federal clerk was directed to send the order to that court and close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Mejias v. Mcivery · No. 7:22-cv-09830
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
Lily Transportation Corp. and Ryder Truck Rental, LT, LLT (the “Removing Defendants”) filed a notice removing Carlos Mejias’s action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, to federal court. The action was initially removed to the Northern District of New York and was later transferred to the Southern District of New York. Jason Mcivery did not join the notice of removal, although counsel for the Removing Defendants stated that, on information and belief, he had not yet been served and had consented to removal through counsel.
The Removing Defendants asserted that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Mejias’s complaint alleged serious and permanent injuries involving his cervical spine and right shoulder, physical therapy, arthroscopic surgery, and damages exceeding the jurisdictional limits of lower courts. Under New York law, however, the complaint did not state a specific dollar amount. The Removing Defendants also relied on allegations in the complaint, medical records received before suit, and a $260,000 pre-suit settlement demand.
Court’s Analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. When state pleading rules do not permit a specific damages demand, the removing defendants must establish by a preponderance of the evidence—that it is more likely than not—that the amount exceeds $75,000.
The court found that the Removing Defendants had not supplied any written indication of the amount in controversy. The state-court docket also contained no written indication of that amount. The court concluded that the defendants’ allegations, without supporting information, were insufficient to meet their burden. The court further explained that courts in the circuit have held that an oral settlement demand is not a sufficient basis for removal.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern held that the Removing Defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, so removal from state court was improper. The action was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange. The Clerk of Court was directed to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal case. The opinion did not decide the underlying personal-injury claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.