McWilliams v. Gilligan
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-08475
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McWilliams v. Gilligan, Judge Schofield granted McWilliams’s motion to remand because the defendants had not properly consented to removal.
The ruling affected Michael Paul McWilliams and the defendants because the federal case was returned to New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, without a decision on the underlying claims.
What happened
In McWilliams v. Gilligan, the defendants removed McWilliams’s state-court lawsuit to federal court. The lawsuit alleged constitutional violations and discrimination under federal and state law. McWilliams, who was representing himself, asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
The court found that it had authority to hear the federal claims, but the removal had a procedural defect. When multiple defendants remove a case, each properly joined and served defendant must independently and clearly consent within the required period. The Municipal Defendants relied on emails from Casey Kenny and Carol A. Gilligan, but those emails were not directed to the court and did not satisfy that requirement.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted McWilliams’s motion to remand. She directed the Clerk of Court to return the case to New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, close all pending motions, and close the federal case.
The detailed version
- McWilliams v. Gilligan · No. 1:24-cv-08475
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
Michael Paul McWilliams filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, against Carol A. Gilligan, Casey Kenny, the New York City Department of Education, the City of New York, and the United Federation of Teachers. He alleged violations of his constitutional rights and discrimination against him as an employee under federal and state law.
The New York City Department of Education and the City of New York, called the Municipal Defendants, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). McWilliams then timely moved to send the case back to state court. Although the Municipal Defendants argued that the motion did not comply with a local rule because it lacked a separate notice of motion, the court overlooked that defect because McWilliams was representing himself and considered the motion on its merits.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it had subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the case—because McWilliams alleged violations of the Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
The court then considered whether the removal complied with required procedures. When a case is removed solely under the general federal removal statute, all properly joined and served defendants must join in or independently consent to removal. The consent must be clearly expressed in writing and provided within the applicable 30-day period.
The Municipal Defendants’ notice of removal did not contain clear, independent consent from each non-municipal defendant. The Municipal Defendants relied on emails in which Kenny and Gilligan told the Municipal Defendants’ counsel that they consented to removal. The court held that communications among defendants that are not directed to the court do not constitute independent consent to removal. Because the defendants had not complied with this requirement, the removal was procedurally defective.
Disposition
The court ordered that McWilliams’s motion to remand was GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to remand the case to New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, close all pending motions, and close the federal case. The order did not decide the merits of McWilliams’s constitutional or discrimination claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.