Jones v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-01372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jones v. CVS Pharmacy, Judge Halpern remanded the case because defendants did not show that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The ruling returned Jeanne Jones’s personal-injury case against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and CVS Albany, LLC to New York state court; it did not decide whether defendants were liable.
What happened
In Jones v. CVS Pharmacy, Jeanne Jones alleged that she was injured after falling in defendants’ store. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and CVS Albany, LLC removed her case from New York state court to federal court.
The defendants relied on diversity jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear a dispute involving citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. But they only stated, based on information and belief, that the amount exceeded $75,000 and provided no supporting information about Jones’s injuries or claimed damages.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that the defendants had not met their burden of showing that the required amount was in controversy. He remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, directed the Clerk to close the federal case, and terminated all pending matters.
The detailed version
- Jones v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. · No. 7:23-cv-01372
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 21, 2023
Background
Jeanne Jones brought a personal-injury action against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and CVS Albany, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. Her complaint alleged that she was injured when she fell in defendants’ store. Because New York law does not permit a personal-injury complaint to state a specific damages amount, the complaint said only that her damages exceeded the jurisdictional limit of lower courts.
On February 17, 2023, the defendants filed a notice removing the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They asserted that complete diversity existed between the parties and that, on information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
Analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires both citizenship in different states and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. When a complaint does not state a specific amount because state practice forbids it, the removing defendants must establish by a preponderance of the evidence—that it is more likely than not—that the amount exceeds $75,000.
Judge Halpern concluded that the defendants did not meet that burden. Their notice of removal contained only the unsupported statement that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Neither the complaint, the notice of removal, nor the state-court docket provided enough information about the nature and extent of Jones’s injuries for the court to reasonably determine that the jurisdictional threshold was satisfied.
Disposition
The court concluded that removal was improper and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. The Clerk was directed to send the order to that court and close the federal action. All pending matters were terminated. The opinion did not decide the merits of Jones’s personal-injury claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.