Jean v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Plaintiff: Yvrose Jean
Defendant: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Case Number: 1:2024cv00371
Filed: January 18, 2024
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Lois Bloom
Referring Judge: Orelia E Merchant
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 14, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 14, 2024 Filing 11 OBJECTION to #10 Report and Recommendations filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (Graves, Yelena)
February 27, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 10 SUA SPONTE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons set forth in the attached Report, it is respectfully recommended that the Court should remand this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and untimely removal. See attached Report. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 2/27/2024. (IK)
February 9, 2024 Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service) (Graves, Yelena)
February 1, 2024 Case Assigned to Judge Orelia E. Merchant and Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom no longer assigned as presider to the case. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (MS)
January 30, 2024 Opinion or Order ORDER: The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to assign a District Judge to preside over this matter. (VP)
January 26, 2024 Filing 8 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Graves, Yelena)
January 26, 2024 Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Yelena Lena Graves on behalf of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Graves, Yelena)
January 19, 2024 Opinion or Order ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Defendant removed this personal injury action from Kings County Supreme Court on January 18, 2024, invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. ECF No. #1 . A defendant removing a matter to federal court bears "the burden of establishing that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction [are] met." Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000).Defendant asserts that removal is proper because of the nature of plaintiff's injuries, and because plaintiff's counsel "made a settlement demand of $550,000 during the course of a mediation and confirmed this demand on January 9, 2024." ECF No. 1 at 13. However, "the removal clock does not start to run until the plaintiff serves the defendant with a paper that explicitly specifies the amount of monetary damages sought." Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendant may not rely on the nature of plaintiff's injuries to establish the amount in controversy. See, e.g., King v. Romero, No. 22-CV-10935, 2022 WL 18009943, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2022) (holding that bill of particulars that "discloses that Plaintiff has undergone multiple spinal surgeries" fails to establish "jurisdictional threshold" for removal to a "reasonable probability"). Moreover, defendant does not specify whether plaintiff's settlement demand was made in writing, nor does defendant attach any writing that specifies in the amount in controversy. An oral settlement demand "is not a pleading or other paper that meets the requisites of 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)" and is thus not a sufficient basis for removal. Abbas v. Kienzler, No. 10-CV-5100, 2010 WL 5441663, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2010) (citation omitted); see also Hogue v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., No. 22-CV-04829, 2022 WL 2256291, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2022) ("District courts in this circuit... have held that an oral settlement demand is not a sufficient basis for removal") (citation omitted); Bader v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 18-CV-1304, 2018 WL 6338774, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018) (finding that plaintiff's counsel's oral settlement demand did not provide a basis for removal by defendant, and therefore removal was premature). Accordingly, defendant is ordered to show good cause by January 26, 2024 why this matter should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 1/19/2024. (VP)
January 18, 2024 Filing 6 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD)
January 18, 2024 Filing 5 Clerks Notice Re: Consent. A magistrate judge has been assigned as the presiding judge in this case as part of a Pilot Program, governed by EDNY Administrative Order 2023-23. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form is also available here: #https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. Unless all parties consent to the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by the deadline set forth in the Administrative Order 2023-23, a District Judge will be assigned to the case. The parties are directed to review the terms of Administrative Order 2023-23 and other materials related to the Pilot Program on the Courts website: #https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/edny-direct-assignment-pilot-program. (KD)
January 18, 2024 Filing 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Strongin, Howard)
January 18, 2024 Filing 3 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Strongin, Howard)
January 18, 2024 Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Strongin, Howard)
January 18, 2024 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. from Supreme Court Kings County, case number 536060/2023. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANYEDC-17473953) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Summons & Complaint, #2 Exhibit Proof of Service) (Strongin, Howard)
January 18, 2024 Case Assigned to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (KD)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jean v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Yvrose Jean
Represented By: Nicholas E. Warywoda
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Represented By: Howard F. Strongin
Represented By: Yelena Lena Graves
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 [ Unicourt | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?