The opinion of the court was delivered by: Denise Cote, District Judge
Plaintiff Lateefah Fleming ("Fleming") brings this action to recover for damages sustained from an automobile collision between Fleming and defendant Edwina Forty ("Forty"). Fleming seeks to recover for damage to her vehicle, loss of income, and physical injuries. After defendant Elrac Inc. was discontinued from the action, defendant Forty brought a motion for summary judgment; a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; and a motion to remand. For the following reasons, the motions are granted.
The following facts are not in dispute or are taken in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, unless otherwise noted. On the evening of January 9, 2003, Fleming was driving on 123rd Street in Manhattan, when her vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by defendant Forty.*fn1
Following the accident, Fleming was taken to Harlem Hospital, where she made complaints about pain in her left shoulder, left hip, back, and left knee. X-rays were taken, and she was told that she had no broken bones. She was discharged and told to follow up with her doctor. Prior to the accident, Fleming was an independent contractor working as a dance and pilates instructor and personal trainer.
A week after the accident, on January 16, Fleming was examined by Dr. Robert A. Adair ("Dr. Adair"), her regular doctor. According to Dr. Adair's affidavit, he examined Fleming and noted "injury to her shoulder and hips and difficulty with mobility in the area of her left shoulder and left hip," and that she complained of a level of pain "such that she was unable to engage in her normal work activity." Dr. Adair instructed Fleming "to refrain from engaging in her normal strenuous activity for as long as it took for her injury to heal." In his opinion, "she would be unable to engage in the strenuous activity associated with her line of work, so long as she experienced the pain."
Fleming refrained from working until the end of January. She returned to work in February on a slower schedule of approximately ten hours per week, which continued until the fall. During this period, she was unable to dance or physically lead a class. According to her deposition testimony, she was restricted in her physical activities, both professionally and otherwise, due to the pain.
After her January 16 visit to Dr. Adair, Fleming was referred for an MRI. Other than the MRI, Dr. Adair did not refer Fleming to anyone else, such as a physical therapist or a chiropractor. Fleming made several more visits to Dr. Adair during the year, but no affidavits from Dr. Adair were submitted regarding any subsequent visits. Her medical expenses from Harlem Hospital and visits to Dr. Adair were paid for by her husband's insurance.
Fleming filed this action in New York state court, and defendants removed it to federal court on November 15, 2005, based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Fleming claims that as a result of her injuries from the accident, she was incapacitated from her work and unable to engage in her normal activities for a period of ninety or more days. She seeks to recover the $500 deductible she paid for damage to her vehicle; $12,000 for lost income; and $1 million for physical injuries. Following fact discovery, Forty moved for summary judgment because Fleming did not sustain a "serious injury," as defined in Section 5102(d) of New York Insurance Law and required under New York's "No Fault" regime. In addition, Forty moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and to remand to state court.
A. Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment may not be granted unless all of the submissions taken together "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a material factual question, and in making this determination the court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When the moving party has asserted facts showing that the non-movant's claims cannot be sustained, the opposing party must "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial," and cannot rest on the "mere allegations or denials" of the movant's pleadings. Rule 56(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.; accord Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir. 2006).
Under New York "No Fault" insurance law, in an action for personal injury arising out of negligence in the use of a motor vehicle, "there shall be no right of recovery for non-economic loss, except in the case of a serious injury, or for basic economic loss." N.Y. Ins. Law § 5104(a) ("Section 5104(a)"). Serious injury is defined as: a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.
Id. § 5102(d) ("Section 5102(d)") (emphasis added). Non-economic loss includes pain and suffering, id. § 5102(c), while basic economic loss includes medical expenses and loss of earnings of "up to fifty thousand ...