govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_25-cv-16278-0

1 
 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
SUSAN COLAGRECO, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
TARGET CORPORATION et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
Civil Action No. 25-16278 
 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 
June 16, 2026 
SEMPER, District Judge. 
 THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff 
Susan Colagreco (“Plaintiff”) on October 21, 2025. (ECF 4, “Mot .”) Defendant Target 
Corporation, incorrectly pled as Target Stores (“Defendant”) filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s 
Motion on November 3, 2025. (ECF 6, “Opp.”) Plaintiff did not file a reply brief in support of 
her Motion. The Court has determined this matter upon the submissions of the parties, without 
oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. 
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED. 
 WHEREAS this action was removed from Bergen County Superior Court in Bergen 
County, New Jersey on October 6, 2025 by Defendant Target Corporation. (ECF 1, “Notice of 
Removal” or “Notice.”) This action is derived from an incident that occurred at a Target store in 
Edgewater, New Jersey, where Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the Target store and sustained 
“serious personal injuries” that “will cause in the future … permanent disability, disfigurement and 
loss of bodily function” among other alleged anticipated harms. (See Notice); and PageID:
<pageID>
2 
 
 WHEREAS Defendants received a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint on or about September 
15, 2025. (Notice.) Defendants removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on October 6, 
2025. (Id.) Plaintiff challenges the removal and moves to remand this action back to the Superior 
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County. (Opp.); and 
WHEREAS the federal removal statute allows a defendant to remove an action filed in 
state court to a federal court which would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1441(a). The statute requires the Notice of Removal to be filed within 30 days after the defendant 
receives the initial pleading “setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding 
is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over “all 
civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 
interest and costs, and is between … citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 
When an action is removed by a defendant, a plaintiff may challenge the removal by 
moving to remand the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447. The two grounds for remand are “(1) lack of district 
court subject matter jurisdiction or ( 2) a defect in the removal procedure.” P AS v. Travelers Ins. 
Co., 7 F.3d 349, 352 (3d Cir. 1993). A motion for remand based on a procedural defect must be 
filed within thirty days of the notice of removal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), whereas “a motion to 
remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time before final 
judgment,” Foster v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 933 F.2d 1207, 1212–13 (3d Cir. 1991) (citing 
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)); and PageID:
<pageID>
3 
 
WHEREAS in this instance, the removal of this action was procedurally valid because 
Defendant filed the Notice of Removal within 30 days of receiving the Complaint.1 (See Notice); 
and 
WHEREAS the sole argument presented in Plaintiff’s Opposition is that “[t]he Complaint 
has various fictitious individual and corporate defendants who managed, operated, and cleaned the 
area in question and who the defendant hired to clean the property and debris. Upon information 
and belief, these are individuals who reside in New Jersey and thus there is no diversity.” (Opp. 
at 1.) The federal removal statute states in explicit terms that “the citizenship of defendants sued 
under fictitious names shall be disregarded” in determining whether removal is proper based on 
diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Therefore, Plaintiff’s arguments fail as a matter of law; 
and 
WHEREAS Plaintiff does not dispute that complete diversity exists between the named 
parties in this action. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New Jersey and Defendant is a corporate 
citizen of the State of Minnesota. (ECF 6 at 4 .) Plaintiff ’s counsel does not dispute in the 
Opposition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id.) Indeed, the injuries and harms 
that Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint, filed as an attachment to the Notice of Removal, suggests 
the amount in controversy plausibly exceeds $75,000. (See generally Notice); and 
WHEREAS because the Court maintains original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and there being no defect in the removal procedure, 
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF 4) is hereby DENIED. 
 
1 As discussed earlier in this O pinion, Defendants received Plaintiff’s C omplaint on or around 
September 15, 2025 and filed their Notice of Removal on October 6, 2025. (ECF 1.) Therefore, 
the Notice of Removal was made 21 days after receipt of the complaint and is procedurally proper. PageID:
<pageID>
4 
 
IT IS on this 16th day of June 2026, hereby: 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED for the reasons stated in this 
Opinion and Order. 
 
/s/ Jamel K. Semper . 
HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER 
United States District Judge 
 
Orig: Clerk 
cc: Andre M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J. 
Parties PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight