Meghila LLC v. Chalek

Background

Carzell Benton, appearing without a lawyer, filed a notice seeking to remove to federal court a pending appeal in the Appellate Division, First Department. The appeal arose from a New York state-court landlord-tenant case involving recovery of unpaid rent and eviction. The state court had entered judgment against Myriam Chalek for $198,863.64. Benton apparently was a co-occupant of the premises and was listed as an appellant in documents relating to the appeal, although the opinion states that he was not a party to the original eviction proceeding. A bankruptcy court order described Benton and Chalek as occupants and stated that Benton was not a tenant under the lease.

Benton argued that removal was proper because the state appellate court had violated constitutional rights by making a stay of eviction conditional on monthly payments and a bond. He also asserted diversity jurisdiction, stating that the defendants were domiciled in New York, had different nationalities, and that Meghila was an artificial person operating out of New Jersey.

Court’s analysis

The court held that removal was improper for several reasons. First, the federal removal statutes authorize removal by a defendant, not by an appellant. Benton was attempting to remove an appeal in which he was an appellant.

Second, removal cannot be used to relitigate a state-court judgment. Federal district courts generally do not have appellate authority to review state-court judgments. The opinion identifies a limited exception for review by the Supreme Court of the United States of a final judgment from a state’s highest court, but found that exception inapplicable here.

The court also stated that the notice of removal did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The underlying landlord-tenant dispute was based on state law, and a federal defense or counterclaim cannot create federal-question jurisdiction. The court further stated that, as a domiciliary of the forum state, Benton could not remove based on diversity jurisdiction under the applicable removal statute.

Disposition

The court remanded the appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), directed the Clerk of Court to send that court a copy of the order, and closed the federal action. All pending matters were terminated. The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Benton permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. It also stated that an earlier warning about potentially barring future fee-free filings for duplicative or abusive litigation remained in effect.