In the realm of product liability, cases involving spilled hot beverages frequently draw comparisons to the landmark McDonald’s hot coffee case (also known as the Liebeck case). A recent matter filed in Manhattan illustrates a similar scenario, alongside an interesting procedural quirk concerning federal removal jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, 77-year-old Rachel Moltner, alleged that she suffered second- and third-degree burns after spilling hot tea from a Starbucks location. The incident reportedly occurred when she encountered difficulty removing the tightly secured lid of the beverage container. This specific complaint contrasts with prior litigation alleging that Starbucks’ lids were insufficiently secured.
Moltner’s claims extend beyond the initial burn injuries, including allegations that she suffered broken bones from a fall out of bed while receiving treatment for the burns at Lenox Hill Hospital. The suit seeks $3 million in damages.
Substantive Allegations and Procedural Posture
The complaint, which was initially filed in New York state court before being removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, contains a range of allegations against Starbucks. These include claims of a defective cup, defectively hot tea, and failure to warn. The case is currently identified as Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., case number 1:08-cv-09257-LAP-AJP (S.D.N.Y.).
The current dispute centers on whether the defendant, Starbucks, timely exercised its right to remove the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a defendant generally has thirty days from the receipt of the initial pleading to file a notice of removal. However, the clock may start later if the initial pleading does not establish federal jurisdiction.
In this instance, Starbucks sought removal more than thirty days after receiving the complaint, waiting until the plaintiff made a formal demand for monetary damages that clearly exceeded the amount-in-controversy requirement of $75,000.
The Jurisdictional Dispute: An Issue of Timeliness
The delay in removal raises an important strategic consideration, often termed sandbagging, for defense attorneys.
- If defendants proactively remove cases based solely on the possibility that damages will exceed the jurisdictional threshold—even when the complaint lacks an explicit ad damnum clause specifying a dollar amount—they risk improperly removing a case that rightfully belongs in state court.
- Conversely, if defendants wait for a formal confirmation from the plaintiff (such as a demand letter) that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, they face the argument that they have missed the mandatory 30-day window for removal.
The plaintiff, Moltner, presents a compelling argument that Starbucks waited too long, asserting that the alleged injuries (second- and third-degree burns, plus subsequent broken bones and a $3 million demand) would have clearly exceeded $75,000 even without a specific amount cited in the initial complaint.
A ruling in favor of the plaintiff on the timeliness issue would mandate that the case be remanded back to state court. While upholding the 30-day removal limit, the practical consequence of such a ruling is that it may encourage defendants to feel compelled to prematurely remove cases to federal court when there is any doubt regarding the amount in controversy, thus potentially leading to more removal attempts that are ultimately found to be unwarranted.
