Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 16, 2025

Boadi v. Stamford Uniform Linen Towel And Napkin, LLC

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-00010
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Boadi v. Stamford Uniform Linen Towel And Napkin, Judge Furman remanded the action because defendants did not adequately establish federal jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Joseph Boadi and defendants Stamford Uniform Linen Towel and Napkin, LLC and Reynaldo Mesa Graciano Jr.; the action returns to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Bronx.

What happened

In Boadi v. Stamford Uniform Linen Towel And Napkin, the defendants asked to move the action from New York state court to federal court, claiming federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The federal court identified problems in the defendants’ filing and gave them two chances to correct it.

The defendants did not fix all of the problems by the deadline. Because the filing did not adequately support federal jurisdiction, the court sent the action back to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Bronx.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the remand and directed the federal court clerk to close the federal case. The order did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Boadi v. Stamford Uniform Linen Towel And Napkin, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00010
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Jan. 16, 2025

Background

Defendants filed a notice of removal on January 2, 2025, invoking federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). Removal is the process of transferring an action from state court to federal court. The court issued an order on January 7 identifying deficiencies in the notice and directing defendants to file an amended notice by January 14.

Defendants filed an amended notice on January 9, but it did not correct every deficiency. On January 10, the court identified the remaining problem and gave defendants until January 14 to file a second amended notice. The court warned that failure to correct the problem would result in remand to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Bronx.

Ruling

The court held that defendants had not cured all deficiencies despite being given two opportunities. It explained that the defendant has the burden of showing that removal was proper and that remand is required when the allegations in a notice of removal are insufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the action be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Bronx. The clerk was directed to remand the case and close the federal case on the court’s docket. The opinion did not reach the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.