5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company

S.D. New York

5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company

DecidedJuly 10, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-05639

StatusUnknown

This text of 5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn ee KX 5 RIVERS CRE, LLC, : Plaintiff, : -v- : 25-CV-5639 (JMF) MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, : ORDER Defendant. :

wn ee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff 5 Rivers CRE, LLC brings this action against Defendant Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, invoking the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Diversity jurisdiction, however, extends only to cases in which there 1s complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 ULS.C. § 1332(a). Here, the Complaint contains only the conclusory allegation that “the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.”” ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), at 4. That is insufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. See e.g., Bonafide Builders, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., No. 22-CV-7906 (DLI) (RER), 2023 WL 2954985, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2023) (“[T]he amount in controversy must be non-speculative to satisfy the statute, and conclusory allegations that the amount-in-controversy requirement 1s satisfied are insufficient.”); Pena v. Gen. Motors Fin. Co. Inc., No. 20-CV-09294 (NSR), 2022 WL 889434, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022) (“[A] conclusory statement by a party that the amount in controversy is met is insufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction.”); Torres v. Merriman, No. 20-CV-03034, 2020 WL 1910494, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2020) (“[A] mere conclusory statement that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is insufficient for the Court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdiction threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) has been met.”). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before July 17, 2025, Plaintiff shall amend the Complaint to adequately allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. If Plaintiff cannot satisfy its burden by that date, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 10, 2025 New York, New York JESSE MAN Uftited States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn ee KX 5 RIVERS CRE, LLC, : Plaintiff, : -v- : 25-CV-5639 (JMF) MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, : ORDER Defendant. :

wn ee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff 5 Rivers CRE, LLC brings this action against Defendant Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, invoking the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Diversity jurisdiction, however, extends only to cases in which there 1s complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 ULS.C. § 1332(a). Here, the Complaint contains only the conclusory allegation that “the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.”” ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), at 4. That is insufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. See e.g., Bonafide Builders, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., No. 22-CV-7906 (DLI) (RER), 2023 WL 2954985, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2023) (“[T]he amount in controversy must be non-speculative to satisfy the statute, and conclusory allegations that the amount-in-controversy requirement 1s satisfied are insufficient.”); Pena v. Gen. Motors Fin. Co. Inc., No. 20-CV-09294 (NSR), 2022 WL 889434, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022) (“[A] conclusory statement by a party that the amount in controversy is met is insufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction.”); Torres v. Merriman, No. 20-CV-03034, 2020 WL 1910494, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2020) (“[A] mere conclusory statement that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is insufficient for the Court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdiction threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) has been met.”). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before July 17, 2025, Plaintiff shall amend the Complaint to adequately allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. If Plaintiff cannot satisfy its burden by that date, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 10, 2025 New York, New York JESSE MAN Uftited States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Rivers CRE, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/5-rivers-cre-llc-v-mt-hawley-insurance-company-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack