Order | Filed: October 02, 2026
| Entered: October 02, 2026
Froukh et al v. Turitz
Motor Vehicle | New York Eastern
Order to Show Cause
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 1 Notice of Removal, filed by Daniel Turitz. On 9/29/2026, defendant Daniel Turitz ("defendant") removed this action from New York State Supreme Court, Richmond County, based on this Court's diversity subject matter jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal ("Notice"), Dkt. 1. Defendant contends that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and, "upon information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs[.]" See id. para. 6.
However, plaintiff's Complaint is silent as to the exact amount in controversy. Because the Complaint is silent on damages and lacks information concerning the extent of plaintiff's injuries, the Court cannot determine that the amount in controversy threshold is satisfied based on plaintiff's general allegations. Such boilerplate pleadings do not suffice to establish that this action involves an amount in controversy adequate to support federal diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Minaudo v. Sunrise at Sheepshead Bay, No. 22-CV-2579, 2023 WL 110359, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2023) (collecting cases remanded for failure to establish amount in controversy, even where permanent, serious, and fatal injuries were alleged). 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). Further, defendants' notice of removal fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit.
The party seeking removal to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction have been met. See Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000). Accordingly, by 10/16/2026, defendant is directed to show cause why this matter should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Cho on 10/2/2026. (JDP)