MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Valentin Jean-Louis filed this action against Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, alleging negligence, negligence per se, civil theft, and conversion. (ECF No. 1-1, “Compl.”).1 Two days later, Plaintiff filed a nearly identical amended complaint. (ECF No. 1-2, “Am. Compl.”). Once served, Defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction.2 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff now moves to remand to state court for lack of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11). Defendant opposes the motion, presenting evidence that the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (ECF No. 19-7, “Opp’n”). The Court heard oral argument on September 13, 2019. (9/13/19 Oral Arg. Tr. (“Tr.”)). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Valentin Jean-Louis is a resident of Queens, New York. (ECF 1-2 at 1). Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that provides mortgage services in Connecticut, with its principal place of business in California. (Am. Compl. 1; ECF No. 19-6, “Osterman Aff.” 3). Plaintiff’s claims arise from allegedly stolen or damaged property at a house in Norwich, Connecticut. (Am. Compl.
2-6). Plaintiff alleges that while the house was vacant, Defendant, in accordance with the terms of a mortgage on the house, and for the purpose of inspecting its condition, entered it without notice to its owner or Plaintiff. (Id. 3). The record is bare regarding any property or other interest of Plaintiff in the house or that his existence was known to Defendant or to whom anything in the house belonged. He alleges that cash and clothing he had stored in the house was missing and/or was stolen by Defendant or negligently left unlocked, allowing others to steal it. The amended complaint provides no other facts. The original complaint — filed on May 29, 2019, and verified by counsel — alleges that Plaintiff’s property was “worth at least $150,000.” (Compl. 6). That amount was omitted from the amended complaint, which is otherwise identical to it. (See Am. Compl. 6). In support of his motion, Plaintiff submits a declaration explaining the discrepancy, as reflecting a miscommunication with his counsel. (ECF No. 11-1, “Jean-Louis Decl.”
