Silas v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-03710
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Silas v. United Parcel Service: Judge Engelmayer granted remand because one defendant did not timely consent to removal.
The ruling affects Trina Silas, United Parcel Service, Inc., Mauricio Cortazar, and Leon Chambers by returning the case to New York state court.
What happened
In Silas v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Trina Silas sued after an automobile accident and the defendants removed the case from New York state court to federal court.
Silas asked the federal court to send the case back because defendant Leon Chambers had not properly consented to removal within the required 30-day period. The other defendants argued that Chambers had verbally consented later.
Judge Engelmayer granted Silas’s motion to remand, directed that the case return to the New York Supreme Court in Bronx County, and did not consider Silas’s other arguments.
The detailed version
- Silas v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03710
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 8, 2024
Background
On March 5, 2022, Trina Silas was injured in an automobile accident on the George Washington Bridge. She was a passenger in a car driven by Leon Chambers. That car collided with another car owned by United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and driven by Mauricio Cortazar.
Silas filed the case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, on June 30, 2023. By July 27, 2023, all defendants had been properly served. On April 18, 2024, the defendants received Silas’s response to their demand for the amount of damages she sought. She stated that she sought more than $5 million. UPS and Cortazar removed the case to federal court on May 14, 2024, based on diversity jurisdiction. Chambers did not join the removal notice or otherwise notify the federal court that he consented to removal.
Reason for Remand
Federal law requires all properly joined and served defendants to join in or consent to removal within 30 days after receiving the filing or other information showing that the case can be removed. The court determined that Chambers had until May 18, 2024, to consent because that was 30 days after defendants received Silas’s response concerning her $5 million demand. Chambers did not consent within that period.
The court rejected UPS and Cortazar’s argument that Chambers’s lawyer had verbally consented during a June 12, 2024 telephone call. The court held that the alleged consent was too late. It also held that, even if the consent had been timely, Chambers needed to notify the court of his consent himself; consent could not be communicated through another defendant’s lawyers.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted Silas’s motion to remand. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. Because of this ruling, the court did not consider Silas’s other arguments supporting remand.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.