The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GRB’S PROPERTIES LLC et al.,
Plaintiffs,
25-CV-19-LJV
v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
et al.,
Defendants.
On December 6, 2024, the plaintiffs, GRB’s Properties LLC (“GRB’s Properties”);
Windshields, Incorporated (“Windshields”); and SDB’s Properties, Inc. (“SDB’s
Properties”), filed this action for negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty in
New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. Docket Item 1-1 at 4-9.1 On January 8,
2025, all defendants—The Black & Decker Corporation; Black & Decker (US) Inc.;
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.; and Black & Decker Inc.—removed the case to this Court.
Docket Item 1. The defendants say that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332
and 1441 because this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship. Docket Item 1 at ¶ 15.
The party invoking federal court jurisdiction “bears the burden of proving that the
case is properly” within that jurisdiction. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919
v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994). Moreover,
this Court has a duty to confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction even when no
1 Page numbers in docket citations refer to ECF pagination.
party has challenged it. See Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428,
434 (2011) (“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not
exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide
jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.”).
For the reasons that follow, the allegations in the notice of removal do not
establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, unless the defendants file
an amended notice of removal as described below, this case will be remanded.
DISCUSSION
Section 1332 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different [s]tates.” 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). The allegations of the notice of removal fail to show that either
requirement is met here.
I. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
“In cases where jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, such
citizenship . . . should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings” or “should
appear affirmatively, and with equal distinctness, in other parts of the record.”
Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 649 (1878). The facts required to show a party’s
citizenship depend on the kind of entities involved in the suit. In this case, each party is
either a corporation or a limited liability company. See Docket Items 1 and 1-1. A
corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of every [s]tate and foreign state by which it has
been incorporated and of the [s]tate or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). In contrast, a limited liability company “takes the
citizenship of each of its members.” Bayerische Landesbank v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt.
LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012).
The defendants suggest that the plaintiffs are citizens of New York, while the
defendants are citizens of Maryland, Connecticut, or Delaware—and not New York.
See Docket Item 1 at ¶¶ 8-15. But the defendants do not provide sufficient facts to
allow this Court to find that two of the plaintiffs—GRB’s Properties, a limited liability
company, and Windshields, a corporation—are, in fact, citizens of New York and only
New York. The defendants say that each (1) is “authorized to do business” and (2) has
“its principal place of business” in New York. See id. at ¶¶ 8-9. But without knowing the
citizenship of each of the members of GRB’s Properties and where Windshields is
incorporated, this Court cannot conclude that they are, in fact, citizens of New York and
only New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Bayerische, 692 F.3d at 49.
The defendants also fail to affirmatively state the citizenship of Black & Decker,
Inc., asserting only that it “is incorporated in . . . Delaware and maintains its principal
place of business outside . . . New York.” Docket Item 1 at ¶ 14. That is not good
enough. See Brown v. Diversified Maint. Sys., LLC, 2016 WL 3207712, at *3 (W.D.N.Y.
June 10, 2016) (holding that defendant limited liability company’s notice of removal was
insufficient where it “never affirmatively state[d] its citizenship” and instead “offer[ed]
only conclusory negative assertions” that both it and its sole member were “not citizens
of New York”); see also Jud Enters., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4259613, at *2
(M.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010) (“The [defendant’s] conclusory allegation that [it] is not a
citizen of Pennsylvania is insufficient to meet [its] burden on removal of showing
complete diversity.”).
Without more complete information about the citizenship of these three parties—
GRB’s Properties; Windshields; and Black & Decker, Inc.—the Court is unable to find
that the parties are completely diverse. And for that reason, the defendants have not
met their burden of demonstrating that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based
on diversity of citizenship.
II. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
What is more, the allegations of the notice of removal fail to show that the first
requirement—amount in controversy—is met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The
defendants say that this requirement is satisfied because the plaintiffs’ claims are based
on an alleged fire that “caus[ed] extensive damage” to the plaintiffs and their property.
Docket Item 1 at ¶ 5 (citing Docket Item 1-1 at 5-9). “Given the nature of the alleged
damages,” the defendants assert “upon information and belief” that “the [amount] in
controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceed[s]” $75,000. Id.
The plaintiffs’ damages may well amount to more than $75,000. See id.; see
also Docket Item 1-1 at 5, ¶ 4; 6, ¶ 10; 7, ¶ 20. But nothing in the complaint indicates
that they are seeking damages above that threshold. See Docket Item 1-1 at 4-9. And
in the absence of anything specifying the amount sought here—or any specific evidence
about the damages at issue—this Court “is left to guess at the amount in
controversy.” See Casco v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2023 WL 2954987, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Apr. 14, 2023); see also Minaudo v. Sunrise at Sheepshead Bay, 2023 WL 110359, at
*3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2023) (noting that courts “have rejected . . . generalized, boilerplate
allegations as a basis for asserting the amount in controversy” and holding that fact that
complaint sought damages for “serious personal injuries and ultimately the loss of a life”
was “insufficient,” standing alone, to show that amount in controversy requirement was
met (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
So based on the current record, this Court is unable to determine whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants therefore are ordered to show cause within
14 days of the date of this order, by filing an amended notice of removal with any
necessary supporting affidavits and exhibits, why this case should not be remanded for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If the defendants fail to do so, the case will be
remanded to New York State Supreme Court, Erie County.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 11, 2025
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE