The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Orenstein, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs Satinder Kaur and Baldaev Kaur ("the Kaurs") filed this wrongful death action against Joseph Levine ("Levine") in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, on October 25, 2006. See Docket Entry ("DE") 1 (including, among other documents, the defendant's Notice of Removal ("Notice") and the Kaurs' Verified Complaint ("Complaint")). On January 19, 2007, Levine filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 seeking to remove the case to this court. For the reasons set forth below, I find that Levine has not satisfied his burden of establishing that this court has original jurisdiction, and furthermore that he has failed sufficiently to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. I therefore order the action summarily remanded to the state court in which it was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). See generally DeMarco v. MGM Transport, Inc., 2006 WL 463504 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2006).
A. Removal Procedures Generally A defendant may remove from state court to federal court any civil action of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Upon such removal, the federal court in which the notice is filed must examine it "promptly." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). "If it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand." Id.
Where, as here, a defendant relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the source of the receiving court's purported original jurisdiction, he must establish that the requirements of the statute have been met. Specifically, he must demonstrate that the parties are citizens of diverse states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2006) ("It is well-settled that the party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.") (citing R.G. Barry Corp. v. Mushroom Makers, Inc., 612 F.2d 651, 655 (2d Cir. 1979)). With respect to the amount-in-controversy element of diversity jurisdiction, the removing party must carry that burden by "proving that it appears to a 'reasonable probability' that the claim is in excess of [$75,000]." United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 303-04 (2d Cir. 1994). A federal court considering the propriety of the removal should generally evaluate the existence of the amount in controversy, like any jurisdictional fact, "on the basis of the pleadings, viewed at the time when the defendant files the notice of removal." Blockbuster, Inc., 472 F.3d at 57 (citing Vera v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109, 116 n.2 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam)); see also Davenport v. Procter & Gamble, 241 F.2d 511, 514 (2d Cir. 1957) (if complaint does not establish amount in controversy, "the court may look to the petition for removal").
B. The Effects of New York's Procedural Law on Removal to Federal Court
The Kaurs' complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, and for good reason. New York law now forbids the inclusion of such an ad damnum clause in a personal injury case like this one. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3017(c). As a result, other than a perfunctory statement of the source of injury -- specifically, that the car owned and operated by Levine "came into violent contact with the person of the decedent," Complaint ¶ 14 -- the Complaint employs boilerplate language to assert the extent of the decedent's injuries and that the damages exceed the relevant jurisdictional limits of lower state courts. Complaint ¶¶ 15-17.
In describing the decedent's injuries, the Complaint's most specific allegation is that he "suffered severe serious and fatal injuries to his head, brain, ... nerves and senses of his entire body and was caused to suffer great mental pain and anguish, all of which caused his early demise." Complaint ¶ 15. The Complaint also alleges that both this action and the decedent's injuries fall within the ambit of specified state law, which does not include a specific monetary threshold. See Complaint ¶ 17 (citing N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102).
Although I can infer from the various allegations that the Kaurs may seek a substantial recovery if they can establish Levine's liability, I cannot conclude from the boilerplate that the amount in controversy necessarily exceeds $75,000. The complaint alone therefore provides insufficient information to "intelligently ascertain removability." See DeMarco, 2006 WL 463504, at *1 (citing Setlock v. Renwick, 2004 WL 1574663 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2004) (quoting Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 205-06 (2d Cir. 2001)).
The Notice provides no additional detail about the specific damages sought; it merely makes the conclusory assertion that "[w]hile the complaint does not allege an ad damnum clause ... it does contain allegations which indicate that the amount demanded will exceed $75,000." This conclusion is based on the Complaint's allegations that the decedent was caused to suffer "great mental pain and anguish," that the economic loss suffered was "greater than basic economic loss," a term defined as an amount up to $50,000 by New York state law, and finally, that the decedent "was survived by a wife and two children who have sustained pecuniary losses. Notice at 2 (citing Complaint ¶¶ 15, 17, 24-25). Even assuming these assertions to be true, however, the Notice provides no indication that the amount actually in controversy -- that is, the amount that the Kaurs seek as a result of the decedent's injuries -- exceeds $75,000.
To be sure, Levine acknowledges that the Complaint does not explicitly satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. He purports to overcome that obstacle by citing an appellate opinion in support of the proposition that the Complaint's allegations create "a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount." Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2nd Cir. 2000) (quoted in Notice at 2). Levine's reliance on Mehlenbacher is misplaced. The decision provides no support for the proposition that a personal injury claim alleging damages in an unspecified amount over $50,000 should be assumed to exceed the $75,000 statutory jurisdictional threshold simply because the complaint alleges "great mental pain and anguish" and involves family members of a decedent. Indeed, in Mehlenbacher, the court did not decide that the complaint at issue satisfied the amount-in-controversy element of diversity jurisdiction; it merely identified the standard, without deciding whether it was satisfied in that case. Id. at 295-96. If anything, the decision undermines Levine's position here, as the court explicitly cast doubt on the likelihood that the defendant would be able to establish a sufficient amount in controversy to create jurisdiction. Id. at 298 & n.11.*fn1
Accordingly, I conclude that the pleadings now before the court do not satisfy Levine's burden to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction. See DeMarco, 2006 WL 463504, at *2 (citing United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 30 F.3d at 304-05).
Levine is not without recourse. The same state law provision that prohibited the Kaurs from including an allegation in their complaint that might support a sufficient notice of removal also provides a procedural mechanism by which Levine can ascertain the existence of facts necessary to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction:
A party against whom an action to recover damages is brought, may at any time request a supplemental demand setting forth the total damages to which the pleader deems himself entitled. A supplemental demand shall be provided by the ...