`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`MARIA ROSA GRASSIA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM
`AND ORDER
`
`18-CV-01621 (NG)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`ROANNE L. MANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
`
`
`
`In an Order To Show Cause dated April 3, 2018, directing defendant Schindler
`
`Elevator Corporation (“Schindler”) to justify its premature removal of this action, this Court
`
`summarized the case law in this Circuit that squarely holds that a case filed in state court does
`
`not become removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction “until the plaintiff serves the
`
`defendant with a paper that specifies the amount of monetary damages sought.” Order To
`
`Show Cause (Apr. 3, 2018) (“OTSC”) at 1, Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry (“DE”) #7
`
`(quoting, inter alia, Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2010)). This
`
`Court specifically observed that information concerning plaintiff’s medical condition or history
`
`– on the basis of which Schindler asked the Court to infer that the damages exceed $75,000 –
`
`is insufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. See OTSC at 2 (collecting cases).
`
`
`
`In response, Schindler proffered a series of jury verdicts in other cases and, citing
`
`decisions that predated the Second Circuit’s decision in Moltner and its progeny, relied on
`
`plaintiff’s refusal to stipulate to cap the damages at $75,000. See Response to Order to Show
`
`Cause (Apr. 9, 2018) at 3, 9-10, DE #8. Absent any further developments in the case, this
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01621-NG-RLM Document 10 Filed 04/26/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 75
`
`Court would have recommended that the action be remanded to state court, where Schindler
`
`could have availed itself of state procedures to secure from plaintiff a statement of the total
`
`damages to which plaintiff claims to be entitled. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3017(c).1
`
`Nevertheless, after Schindler responded to the Order To Show Cause, plaintiff served (and
`
`Schindler filed) a statement of damages in the amount of $450,000. See Exhibit to Addendum
`
`to Memorandum of Law in Response to Order to Show Cause (Apr. 13, 2018), DE #9-1.
`
`Under these circumstances, the Court will not recommend a remand to state court.
`
`Nevertheless, Schindler is admonished for continuing to remove cases to federal court without
`
`first securing the requisite written statement – or evidence - of damages in excess of $75,000.
`
` SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: Brooklyn, New York
`
` April 26, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Roanne L. Mann
`
`ROANNE L. MANN
`CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`1 As Schindler is constrained to concede, this is not the first time that it sought to remove a case from state court
`without the requisite statement of damages. See Palmer v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 17-cv-3619 (ARR)(RLM),
`2017 WL 3037411 (E.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017) (remanding prematurely removed case to state court).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
