Christopher Alvarez v. The Twister Group, Inc., GSM, LLC d/b/a GSM Outdoors and Muddy Outdoors

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 7:25-cv-09503
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTOPEHR ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 25-CV-09503 (PMH) THE TWISTER GROUP, INC., GSM, LLC D/B/A GSM OUTDOORS AND MUDDY

OUTDOORS, Defendants. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: GSM, LLC d/b/a GSM Outdoors1 and Muddy Outdoors2 (“Removing Defendants”) filed 0F 1F a Notice of Removal on November 13, 2025, removing this action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, to this Court. (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, this matter is REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. BACKGROUND The Removing Defendants annexed to the Notice of Removal a copy of Plaintiff’s Summons and Verified Complaint (Doc. 1-1); written consent of defendant The Twister Group, Inc. to the removal (Doc. 1-2); the Notice of Removal filed in state court (Doc. 1-3); and an affidavit of service of the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1-4). The Removing Defendants claim that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute because: (1) complete diversity exists between the parties; and (2) “a reasonable reading of the Complaint and understanding of the

1 The Removing Defendants clarify that the correct name of this entity is Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC. (Doc. 1 ¶ 5).

2 The Removing Defendants allege that “Muddy is no longer operating as a corporation and is only a brand name for treestand and hunting products distributed by [Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC].” (Doc. 1 ¶ 6). personal injuries alleged demonstrates that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 . . .” (Doc. 1 ¶ 13). ANALYSIS Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . .” 28

U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The [federal] 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—(1) citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “The Supreme Court has held that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of establishing the existence of the jurisdictional amount in controversy.” Villafana v. So, No. 13-CV-00180, 2013 WL 2367792, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2013) (quoting Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 273 (2d Cir. 1994)). While defendants need not “prove the amount in controversy to an absolute certainty,” they have “the burden of proving that it appears to a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount.” Id. (quoting Mehlenbacher v.

Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000)). “[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendants’ notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removing the plaintiff’s action from state court.” Id. (quoting Lupo, 28 F.3d at 273-74).3 2F Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he was injured by an allegedly defective and unreasonably dangerous Tree-Stand. (See generally Doc. 1-1). A plaintiff’s complaint, in an action

3 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Nguyen v. FXCM Inc., 364 F. Supp. 3d 227, 237 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). to recover damages for personal injuries in New York, “shall contain a prayer for general relief but shall not state the amount of damages to which the pleader deems himself entitled.” C.P.L.R. § 3017(c). Accordingly, the Complaint does not state a specific sum of money sought from Defendants and asserts only that his damages “exceed[] the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.” (Doc. 1-1 at 10-11). If removal of a civil suit from state

court to federal court is premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and “[s]tate practice . . . does not permit demand for a specific sum,” removal is proper only “if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” 28. U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). The Removing Defendants assert that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000 because the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “sustained ‘severe, painful persona injuries; was rendered sick, sore, lame and disabled and so remains; was confined to hospital, home and bed; was prevented from attending his usual duties and occupation. . .’ . . . . Based on his allegations, Plaintiff also claims that he has ‘lost and will continue to lose the enjoyment of life, and was

obliged to seek and receive medical care and attention and will hereinafter necessarily seek further medical care and attention in consequence of the injuries. . . .’” (Doc. 1 ¶ 12 (quoting Doc. 1-1 ¶ 38)). According to the Removing Defendants, “a reasonable reading of the Complaint and understanding of the personal injuries alleged demonstrates” that Plaintiff’s damages exceed $75,000. (Id. ¶ 13). The Removing Defendants have not furnished any written indication of the amount in controversy. (See generally, Doc. 1). This Court, although not required to do so, has also undertaken to review the electronic docket in the state court proceeding. That docket is similarly devoid of any written indication of the amount in controversy. (See Index No. 72700/2025, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1-7). As federal courts are instructed to “construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability,” Lupo, 28 F.3d at 274 (quoting Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1046 (2d Cir. 1991)), the Removing Defendants’ allegation in the absence of any

supporting information that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is insufficient for the Court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) has been met. See 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.”); Crane Equip. & Servs., Inc. v. B.E.T. Const., Inc., No. 14-CV-01755, 2015 WL 471323, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2015) (granting motion for remand where “Defendant’s Notice of Removal conclusively states that the amount in controversy is ‘[m]ore than $75,000’ without any further clarification”); Villafana, 2013 WL

2367792, at *2 (“[A] ‘mere averment’” is insufficient to satisfy defendants’ burden to establish amount in controversy (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))). CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Removing Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Removal is therefore improper. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to send a copy of this Order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, and to close this action. All pending matters are hereby terminated.

SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York November 18, 2025 (Corum Philip M. Halpern United States District Judge