Hill v. Target Corporation
| Amy Hill |
| Target Corporation doing business as Target Stores, Inc. |
| 3:2026cv00538 |
| April 8, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah F Russell |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial disclosures due by June 12, 2026. Discovery due by October 9, 2026. Dispositive motions due by November 13, 2026. Initial Status Report due by July 9, 2026. Second Status Report due by October 16, 2026. All further deadlines are set forth in the attached scheduling order. Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 5/26/2026. (JM)
|
| Filing 17 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Filing 16 Amended NOTICE by Target Corporation re #7 Notice of Removal (Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Set Deadlines/Hearings: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/26/2026 (Lewis, D) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER. The court has an independent obligation to assess whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). In this removed action, Defendant bears the burden of establishing that all requirements for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction are satisfied. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Where, as here, jurisdiction is asserted by a defendant in a removal petition, it follows that the defendant has the burden of establishing that removal is proper."). In situations where the complaint does not explicitly claim damages exceeding $75,000, the court may look beyond a complaint to review the notice of removal and other filings; if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, diversity jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(2)(B).Consistent with Connecticut practice, the complaint filed in Superior Court states only that the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000. ECF No. 7, at 13. Nor does Defendant explicitly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. at 2 (stating that "the amount in controversy potentially exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"). Defendant does not identify any facts to support its assessment of the potential amount in controversy. The court therefore cannot assess from this record whether the requirements for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction are satisfied.The parties are instructed to promptly confer regarding the amount in controversy. If Defendant believes that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, Defendant shall file an amended Notice alleging facts concerning this case that will permit the court to assess whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This Notice is due on or before May 15, 2026. If Plaintiff does not agree that Defendant's Notice supports a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, Plaintiff shall move to remand within 21 days of the filing of Defendant's Notice. If the parties agree that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, they may instead file a binding stipulation on or before May 15, 2026 that Plaintiff will not accept more than $75,000 in damages; if the parties so stipulate, the court will conclude it lacks diversity subject-matter jurisdiction and remand the case to Connecticut Superior Court. See Luce v. Koh's Dep't Stores, Inc., 23 F. Supp. 3d 82, 86 (D. Conn. 2014). Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 4/10/2026. (McDonough, J)
|
| Filing 14 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Target Corporation.(Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #3 Disclosure Statement filed by Target Corporation, #1 Notice of Appearance filed by Target Corporation, #6 Notice (Other) filed by Target Corporation, #10 Standing Protective Order, #7 Notice of Removal filed by Target Corporation, #4 Notice (Other) filed by Target Corporation, #2 Notice (Other) filed by Target Corporation, #11 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, #9 Electronic Filing Order, 12 Notice re: AI-Assisted Research,,,, #8 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #5 Notice (Other) filed by Target Corporation, Staff Notes Signed by Clerk on 04/09/2026. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order on Removed Cases)(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 12 Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research: Attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court. Use of AI without verification of the accuracy of the information it generates like any other shoddy research method from other sources or tools implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the central purpose of which is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus to streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts. Rule 11 applies fully to actions filed by pro se litigants.Therefore, all parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse. See generally Willis v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n et al, No. 3:25-CV-516-BN, 2025 WL 1408897 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025). Signed by Clerk on 04/09/2026.(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 11 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in this civil action (including presiding over a jury or non-jury trial) and to order the entry of final judgment.(Chartier, A.) |
|
Filing 10
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 04/09/2026.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 04/09/2026.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 8
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/8/2026 Discovery due by 10/9/2026 Dispositive Motions due by 11/13/2026 Signed by Clerk on 04/09/2026.(Chartier, A.)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Target Corporation from Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, case number HHB-CV26-6104352-S.( Filing fee $405 receipt number ACTDC-8566680), filed by Target Corporation.(Murphy, T) |
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Sarah F. Russell assigned to the case. If the District Judge issues an Order of Referral to a Magistrate Judge for any matter other than settlement, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE by Target Corporation of Certification of Filing Copy of Notice of Removal in State Court (Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE by Target Corporation of Statement Pursuant to Standing Order in Removed Cases (Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE by Target Corporation of Civil Miscellaneous Notices and Orders (Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Filing 3 Disclosure Statement by Target Corporation. (Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE by Target Corporation of No Pending Motions in State Court (Neborsky, Dawn) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Appearance by Dawn M. Neborsky on behalf of Target Corporation (Neborsky, Dawn) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Hill v. Target Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Amy Hill | |
| Represented By: | William Michael Brown, Jr. |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Target Corporation doing business as Target Stores, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Dawn M. Neborsky |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
