Target Removes Redmond Personal-Injury Suit to Federal Court in EDNY

Target Corporation filed a Notice of Removal that moved a state-court personal-injury action brought by plaintiff Thomas Redmond into the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where the federal case opened on February 26, 2026 as 1:26-cv-01120. Docket entries in the federal file indicate the removal and related civil-cover documents were submitted by Target.

The federal docket lists the parties and counsel by name: plaintiff Thomas Redmond and defendant Target Corporation, with Decolator, Cohen & Diprisco, LLP appearing as plaintiff counsel and Molod Spitz & Desantis, P.C. appearing as defendant counsel. The case is categorized on the summary listing as Torts - Personal Injury - Other (360) with claims identified as Personal Injury Claims.

Available source material confirms the procedural step of removal but does not include the underlying state-court pleadings. The supplied materials do not provide the state-court docket number, the county where the complaint was filed, the factual allegations or location of the alleged incident, any amount-in-controversy statement, or any federal filings beyond the Notice of Removal and civil-cover entries. There are no motions, rulings, or quotes from counsel in the materials provided.

The original report fragment preserved in the source material reads verbatim: “Who: Plaintiff Redmond (plaintiff) filed a state-court action that Target Corporation removed to federal court; the federal docket identifies Target as the defendant. What: The docket entries show a Notice of Removal by Target and related civil-cover documents (Justia’s public case index lists the r” — the sentence is truncated in the source and the remainder is not available.

For context on how Target has handled removal disputes in the past, a separate 2024 removal battle is summarized in a Capehart column by Betsy G. Ramos. That earlier case, Taylor v. Target Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201963 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2024), involved plaintiff Jeffrey Taylor and additional named defendants including Dayton Hudson Corp., Mervyn’s Inc., and Target store manager Alexander Applegate. In Taylor, Target’s petition for removal asserted Target Corporation was a citizen of Minnesota and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, but the District Court found Target had not shown Applegate was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. The Capehart report preserves the complaint language that Applegate “had an affirmative executive duty to monitor and supervise” and that Applegate “did negligently, improperly, and carelessly design, construct, maintain, and supervise the aforementioned premises and. . . did fail to give warning to business invitees of the dangerous and hazardous condition that existed.”

The critical next records to resolve open questions in Redmond are the Notice of Removal attachments and the original state-court complaint. Pulling EDNY docket 1:26-cv-01120 to download the Notice of Removal and any exhibits will reveal whether Target asserted diversity of citizenship, an amount-in-controversy figure, or attached the state pleadings. Obtaining the state-court complaint will disclose the factual allegations, any additional defendants, and whether Target may raise fraudulent-joinder arguments similar to those contested in Taylor.