100 Orchard Street, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, No. 1:2020cv08452 - Document 20 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 14 MOTION to Remand to State Court . filed by 100 Orchard Street, LLC. Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED as meritless. In light of that denial and the pending motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 9, Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by December 2, 2020. If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by the same date. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed by December 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 14. SO ORDERED., ( Amended Pleadings due by 12/2/2020., Responses due by 12/2/2020, Replies due by 12/9/2020.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/16/20) (yv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
100 Orchard Street, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of America Doc. 20 Case 1:20-cv-08452-JMF Document 20 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : 100 ORCHARD STREET, LLC D/B/A : BLUE MOON HOTEL, : : Plaintiff, : : -v: : THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY : COMPANY OF AMERICA, : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 20-CV-8452 (JMF) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff 100 Orchard Street, LLC filed a motion to remand this case to New York State court, from which it had been removed by the Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”). In particular, Plaintiff alleges that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the statute invoked by Travelers in its notice of removal, because the amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied. See ECF No. 14, at 1. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion, substantially for the reasons set forth in Defendant’s memorandum of law. See ECF No. 17. Briefly stated, Section 1332 endows the federal courts with subject-matter jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are of diverse citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As Defendant notes, “[i]n actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief,” such as this one, “it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Correspondent Servs. Corp. v. First Equities Corp. of Fla., 442 F.3d 767, 769 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, it is plain that the value of the litigation to Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-08452-JMF Document 20 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiff exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000 — and, more to the point, Defendant, which bears the burden of pleading jurisdiction to support removal, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014), plausibly alleges that it does so, see, e.g., In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 2015 WL 2130904, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2015) (considering “parties’ memoranda” and “supplemental submissions” to determine that defendant “has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000”). Among other things, Plaintiff — a boutique, luxury hotel in Manhattan — seeks insurance coverage pursuant to a policy providing $1,250,000 in coverage for business income and extra expense loss due to COVID-19. More specifically, Plaintiff seeks a declaration requiring coverage for (1) three months’ total loss of business income (an amount that, one can infer, exceeds $100,000, Plaintiff’s monthly mortgage payment); (2) at least two months’ partial loss of business income; (3) loss of monthly rental income from a commercial tenant; (4) additional “[e]xpenses incurred”; and (4) future loss of income from mandated closures in New York City. See ECF No. 17, at 10-11. Notably, Plaintiff itself alleges that it has suffered “massive business income losses” — and that these losses continue to grow. ECF No. 2-2, ¶ 74. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED as meritless. In light of that denial and the pending motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 9, Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by December 2, 2020. If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by the same date. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed by December 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 14. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 16, 2020 New York, New York __________________________________ JESSE M. FURMAN United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
