Yolanda Garcia Nolasco sues Target, case removed to SDNY federal court

A personal-injury lawsuit brought by Yolanda Garcia Nolasco against Target Corporation was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, federal filings show. The federal docket number is 1:26-cv-01034, and the removal filing lists the state-court index as 824651/2025E.

The Notice of Removal and a civil cover sheet were filed by counsel identified on the federal docket as Alice Spitz of Molod, Spitz & Desantis, P.C. The removal entry on the docket reads in part: "NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. Case Number: 824651/2025E. (Filing Fee $ 405.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-32375718).Document filed by Target Stores, Target Corporation..(Spitz, Alice) Related: [-] Att: 1 Exhibit A, Att: 2 Exhibit B." The filing fee is recorded as $405.00 and the receipt number is listed as ANYSDC-32375718.

The notice identifies the nature of suit as "360 Torts - Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury" and the cause as "28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury," indicating Target invoked diversity jurisdiction to move the case into federal court. The removal took place on Feb. 6, 2026, according to the federal docket snapshot.

There is a conflicting docket note that requires immediate verification. A separate docketing line reads: "CASE REMANDED OUT from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the State Court - Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New." The truncated line does not include a date or order text, so it is not possible from available filings to confirm whether the case remains in federal court or was returned to Bronx Supreme Court.

If the case remains in federal court, a common next step would be a motion by the plaintiff to remand back to state court. Federal remand jurisprudence requires the removing party to demonstrate by competent evidence that federal jurisdiction exists. As one court has put it, "If the removing party cannot demonstrate federal jurisdiction by `competent proof,' the removal was in error and the district court must remand the case to the court in which it was filed." Courts also determine removability by "looking to the complaint as it existed at the time the petition for removal was filed," and assess whether there is a "reasonable probability" the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.

For Target employees and workers, the case highlights how premises-liability and personal-injury suits can shift forums and legal standards. Past outcomes in retail slip-and-fall litigation have ranged from modest settlements to seven-figure verdicts; one review of prior Target matters lists a 2024 verdict of $1,500,000 and several smaller settlements, though some reported settlement figures differ within that public summary.

Reporters and litigants will be watching whether the SDNY issues a remand order or whether the case proceeds on the federal docket. The next meaningful public filings to track are the full Notice of Removal and its attached exhibits, any plaintiff motion to remand, and the Bronx Supreme Court complaint to identify alleged facts, other named defendants, and plaintiff counsel.