Kallman v. Kallmant
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-08291
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kallman v. Kallman, Judge Torres granted remand after the amended complaint removed its only federal claim, leaving state-law claims.
The case was returned to Supreme Court, New York County, where the parties may continue litigating the state-law claims. The federal court did not decide the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration; it stated that the defendants could file nearly identical motions in state court.
What happened
In Kallman v. Kallman, Richard Kallman sued Kineret Kallman and others in New York state court over the Kallman Family Irrevocable Trust. The defendants moved the case to federal court because the original complaint referred to the federal Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
Kallman later amended the complaint and removed that reference. The remaining claims arose under state law, and the case was still at an early stage: there had been no initial pretrial conference or discovery. The defendants also had pending motions to compel arbitration.
Judge Torres granted Kallman’s motion to remand and sent the case back to Supreme Court, New York County. She declined to keep the remaining state-law claims in federal court, denied the defendants’ request to have the arbitration motions decided first, and denied their request to delay the remand decision.
The detailed version
- Kallman v. Kallmant · No. 1:24-cv-08291
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 20, 2024
Background
Richard Kallman, individually and as co-trustee of the Kallman Family Irrevocable Trust, began the action in Supreme Court, New York County. The defendants removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the federal removal statute, relying on the original complaint’s reference to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The original complaint asserted thirteen causes of action. Twelve arose under state law. One cause of action alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties by virtue of the Investment Advisers Act. After removal, Kallman filed an amended complaint that removed the reference to that federal statute while asserting the same thirteen causes of action.
Remand analysis
The court explained that federal jurisdiction is generally assessed using the complaint in effect when the case is removed. Removing federal claims after removal does not automatically eliminate jurisdiction that was properly established. But when federal claims are eliminated early in a case, a federal court may decline to keep related state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear claims connected to a federal claim.
The court found that this case was still in its early stages and had not materially advanced. It had issued no orders requiring reconsideration after remand, and the parties had not attended an initial pretrial conference or begun discovery. The court therefore concluded that the relevant considerations favored declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
The defendants argued that additional claims involved federal law, but the court rejected that argument, stating that the federal issues in those claims were not substantial. The court also noted that the defendants had filed two motions to compel arbitration. It denied the defendants’ request to decide those motions before ruling on remand, explaining that any prejudice was minimal because the defendants could file nearly identical motions in state court.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres granted Kallman’s motion to remand. The action was remanded to Supreme Court, New York County. The court also denied the defendants’ request to postpone the remand decision until the Supreme Court decided Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger. The clerk was directed to terminate the remand motion, terminate any pending motions as moot, and close the federal case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.