United States District Court, S.D. New York
Gropper Gropper Law Group PLLC New York, New York Counsel for
Beverly Barr Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote New York, New
York Counsel for Defendants
MEMORANDUM & OPINION
S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge
me are Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to the
New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County (“Supreme
Court”), (Doc. 7), and Defendants' cross-motion for
leave to file an amended petition for removal, (Doc. 19).
Because the defects in Defendants' petition for removal
are merely technical and may therefore be corrected more than
thirty days after the filing of the complaint,
Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED, and
Defendants' motion to file an amended petition for
removal is GRANTED.
Background and Procedural History
commenced this action on June 13, 2016, by filing a complaint
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.
(See Doc. 1 at 5-13.) The case stems from an August
2015 motor vehicle accident that occurred on the Cross-Bronx
Expressway in the Bronx, New York. (Compl. ¶¶
26-28.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered
severe and permanent physical injuries when the motor vehicle
driven by Defendant Catlin Ivan Rogers
(“Rogers”), and owned by Defendant Bulk Carriers
(P.E.I.) Ltd. (“Bulk Carriers”, and together with
Rogers, “Defendants”), “came into contact
with the motor-vehicle” Plaintiff was driving.
(Id.) Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: (1)
negligence; and (2) negligent hiring, training, screening,
and/or supervision. (See Compl.)
September 1, 2016, Defendants filed a petition for removal in
this District. (See Doc. 1.) In the Removal
Petition, Defendants assert that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a) because there is complete diversity of
citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants, (Removal
Petition ¶ 6), and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000, (id. ¶ 9). Defendants state that they
were served in accordance with the Hague Convention,
received a copy of the summons and complaint on August 3,
2016. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 12.) In addition,
Defendants allege that: (1) Plaintiff is a
“resident” of Fort Lee, New Jersey, (id.
¶ 4 (citing Compl. ¶ 1)); (2) Bulk Carriers operates
its principal place of business in the Province of Prince
Edward Island, Canada, (id. ¶ 2); and (3)
Rogers is a “resident” of Borden-Carlton in the
Province of Prince Edward Island, Canada, (id.
removal from the Supreme Court, the case was initially
assigned to Judge Nelson S. Román. (See ECF
Dkt. Entry Sept. 1, 2016.) On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff
submitted a pre-motion letter seeking leave to file her
anticipated motion to remand. (Doc. 5.) On October 20, 2016,
the case was reassigned to me, (see ECF Dkt. Entry
Oct. 20, 2016), and the next day I issued a memo endorsement
granting Plaintiff leave to file her anticipated motion to
remand as soon as practicable, (Doc. 6).
October 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed her two page Motion to
Remand to State Court and Opposition to Defendants'
Petition for Removal. (Doc. 7.) On November 18, 2016,
Defendants filed their Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and in Support of
Defendants' Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for
Removal. (Doc. 15.) After several attempts to correct various
filing errors, on January 24, 2017, Defendants filed their
Notice of Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for
Removal, (Doc. 19), and the Certification of Beverly Barr in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and in Support
of Defendants' Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend Petition
for Removal, (the “Barr Declaration”, Doc. 20).
Defendants attached their proposed amended petition for
removal (“Amended Removal Petition”) as Exhibit F
to the Barr Declaration. (Doc. 20 at 43-45.) Plaintiff did
not file a reply memorandum of law in support of her motion
to remand or a memorandum of law in opposition to
Defendants' cross motion for leave to amend the petition
Amended Removal Petition, Defendants allege that this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because there is complete diversity
of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants, (Amended
Removal Petition ¶¶ 13, 14), and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000, (id. ¶ 10). With
respect to Defendants' citizenship, the Amended Removal
Petition states that: (1) Bulk Carriers is a Canadian company
with its principal place of business in the Province of
Prince Edward Island, Canada, (id ¶ 5); and (2)
Rogers is a Canadian citizen residing in Borden-Carlton in
the Province of Prince Edward Island, Canada, (id.
¶ 6). With respect to Plaintiffs citizenship, the
Amended Removal Petition states that Plaintiff: (1) resides
in Fort Lee, New Jersey, (id. ¶ 7); (2) does
not disclose whether or not she is a citizen of the State of
New Jersey or the United States, (id. ¶ 8); and
(3) does not have any nexus with Canada other than the motor
vehicle accident with the Canadian Defendants, (id.
federal removal statute provides, in part, that:
A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action
from a State court shall file in the district court of the
United States for the district and division within which such
action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a
short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,
together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders
served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). In addition, the statute provides
that the notice of removal shall be filed within thirty days
after the defendant's receipt of the ...