Ymbras v. Inserra Supermarkets Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-00066
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ymbras v. Inserra Supermarkets, Judge Halpern remanded the case because defendants did not establish complete diversity.
The remand returned Matthew John Ymbras's case against Inserra Supermarkets, Inc. and Shoprite of Stony Point to New York state court; the federal action was closed.
What happened
In Ymbras v. Inserra Supermarkets, Inc., the defendants removed the case from New York state court to federal court, arguing that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court ruled that the defendants had not shown that the plaintiff was a citizen of New York. His alleged residence in Rockland County was not enough, and his failure to respond to a request to admit did not establish citizenship for federal jurisdiction.
Judge Halpern remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland, and directed the clerk to close the federal action and terminate pending matters and scheduled conferences.
The detailed version
- Ymbras v. Inserra Supermarkets Inc. · No. 7:24-cv-00066
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 10, 2024
Background
Matthew John Ymbras sued Inserra Supermarkets, Inc. and Shoprite of Stony Point in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland. The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2024. They asserted federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, which generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in dispute exceed $75,000.
The defendants alleged that Inserra Supermarkets, Inc. was incorporated in New Jersey and had its principal place of business in New Jersey. They also argued that Shoprite of Stony Point was only a store identifier, not a separate legal entity. The plaintiff alleged that he resided in Rockland County, New York, and stated that he claimed $1 million in damages. The defendants further argued that the plaintiff's failure to respond to a request to admit established that he was a New York citizen.
Analysis
The court explained that an individual's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction depends on domicile, not residence. The plaintiff's allegation that he resided in Rockland County did not establish that he was a citizen of New York. The court also held that the plaintiff's failure to respond to the request to admit was insufficient to establish his citizenship for jurisdictional purposes.
Because the defendants had the burden of establishing complete diversity, and their arguments did not allow the court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that complete diversity existed, the court concluded that removal was improper. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying dispute.
Disposition
The court remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland. It directed the clerk to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal action. All pending matters and scheduled conferences were terminated. Judge Halpern entered the order on January 10, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.