MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Shoshanah Kresin filed this action in New York state court against Defendant MRO Corp. (“MRO”), a healthcare organization. Proceeding pro se, Kresin asserted various state law claims against MRO, alleging that it “refused to release copies of Plaintiff’s medical records necessary for Plaintiff to act as Executor of the Estate of her late father in a timely manner.” Notice of Removal 2, ECF No. 1. MRO timely removed the case to this Court, invoking its diversity jurisdiction. Id. 3. Kresin moved to remand, asserting that she seeks only $60,000 and thus the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction has not been satisfied. Mot. to Remand 1, ECF No. 5; see Pl. Reply 1, ECF No. 13. After initially opposing that motion, MRO indicated its consent to remand, on the condition that Kresin not seek damages in excess of $60,000. See Def. Response 2, ECF No. 11. Because MRO has not met its burden to establish the requisite amount in controversy, and in light of the parties’ representations regarding damages, the Court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over this matter and remands it to state court. I. Discussion Federal courts are of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. As the party invoking this Court’s federal jurisdiction, MRO “bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction” and must do so by a “preponderance of evidence.” here. See Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 617 (2d Cir. 2019); see also Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“On a motion to remand, the party seeking to sustain the removal…bears the burden of demonstrating that removal was proper.”).1 MRO removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, which provides for federal jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000″ and is between “citizens of different states.” At issue here is the amount-in-controversy prong.2 MRO, as the removing party, “has the burden of proving that it appears to a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of” $75,000. Tongkook Am., Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781, 784 (2d Cir. 1994). In determining whether this burden has been satisfied, courts generally “look first to the plaintiff['s] complaint and then to [the defendant's] petition for removal.” Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000). Section 1446, moreover, provides that when the initial pleading alleges a specific damages amount, that sum, if “demanded in good faith…shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(2). MRO has failed to meet its burden. Kresin’s state court complaint states that she seeks damages “in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $60,000.00.” Notice of Removal 2 (emphasis added). As a basis for removal, MRO argued that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and that this is “facially apparent from Plaintiff’s Complaint” — based in large part on this “not less than” language. See Def. Opp’n to Mot. to Remand 2, ECF No. 8; see also Notice of Removal
