Tricarico v. GEICO Marine Insurance Company et al
| Mark Tricarico |
| GEICO Marine Insurance Company and GEICO Boat U.S. |
| 2:2022cv05170 |
| August 30, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Gary R Brown |
| Lee G Dunst |
| Contract: Marine |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 STATE COURT RECORD received from Judith Pascale, Suffolk County Clerk, Index No. 603172-2021. Since the above mentioned case is E-filed, there are no hard copies of the documents listed on the Civil Court Minutes Report. (JC) |
Order of Remand to State Court. Defendant Geico Marine has removed this action from the Suffolk County Supreme Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In order to invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, a plaintiff must demonstrate to a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Hicks v. Leslie Feely Fine Art, LLC, 2021 WL 982298, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021). While we presume that the face of the complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy, that presumption may be rebutted by a demonstration to a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover the amount alleged.... Suarez v. Mosaic Sales Sols. US Operating Co., LLC, 720 F. App'x 52, 53 (2d Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Here, the removal may well be barred because of delayed filing. However, setting that issue aside, the complaint -- as well as the ancillary filings cited by defendant -- does not justify removal. The allegations of the complaint reveal that the insurance policy at issue has a $50,000 limit. While plaintiff seems to maintain - aspirationally - that punitive damages will make up the difference, such bald assertions do not warrant the exercise of removal jurisdiction. Indeed, on the basis of the allegations, the Court finds to a legal certainty and beyond any doubt -- that plaintiff cannot recover damages sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional minimum. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Suffolk County Supreme Court, and the Clerk is to close the file. Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 9/1/2022. (Brown, Gary)
|
| Filing 6 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the 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 may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Jakubowski, Laura) |
| Filing 5 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (Jakubowski, Laura) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Gary R. Brown and Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst. 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. (Jakubowski, Laura) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick C Nolan on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Nolan, Patrick) |
| Filing 3 Civil Cover Sheet.. by GEICO Marine Insurance Company (Fennell, William) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by GEICO Marine Insurance Company identifying Corporate Parent Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Corporate Parent National Indemnity Cornpany, Corporate Parent GEICO Corporation for GEICO Marine Insurance Company. (Fennell, William) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by GEICO Marine Insurance Company from New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, case number 603172/2021. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-15892110) Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Plaintiff's State Court Complaint, #2 Exhibit Affidavit of Service of Plaintiff's State Court Complaint, #3 Exhibit Defendant's Answer to State Court Complaint, #4 Exhibit Defendant's Demand for Statement of Damages, #5 Exhibit Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Demand for Damages, #6 Exhibit Declaration of William M. Fennell, Esq., #7 Exhibit Ex. 1 to Fennell Decl. -- January 13, 2022, correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel, #8 Exhibit Ex. 2 to Fennell Decl. -- Request for Judicial Intervention, #9 Exhibit Ex. 3 to Fennell Decl. -- Defendant's Request for Answers to Interrogatories, #10 Exhibit Ex. 4 to Fennell Decl. -- Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Demand for Answers to Interrogatories, #11 Exhibit Ex. 5 to Fennell Decl. -- June 29, 2022, correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel, #12 Exhibit Ex. 6 to Fennell Decl. -- July 7, 2022, email to Plaintiff's counsel, #13 Exhibit Ex. 7 to Fennell Decl. -- Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Interrogatories, #14 Exhibit Ex.8 to Fennell Decl. -- August 5, 2022, correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel) (Fennell, William) Modified on 8/30/2022 (Jakubowski, Laura). |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
