Bautisa v. TAP Air Portugal
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-00503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bautista v. TAP Air Portugal, Judge Rochon ordered TAP to prove service and address reopening after possible improper removal.
Javier Bautista and TAP Air Portugal; TAP must provide additional information before the court decides whether to reopen the case.
What happened
Javier Bautista moved to reopen Bautista v. TAP Air Portugal, saying TAP Air Portugal had not served him with documents filed in federal court, including the notice of removal.
The court found that TAP had provided proof of service for several filings but not for the notice of removal. The state-court docket also did not show whether TAP filed the removal notice in the small-claims court.
Judge Rochon did not decide whether to reopen the case. She ordered TAP to provide proof of service, explain whether the notice was filed in state court, and address whether the judgment should be reopened under Rule 60(b)(4) by April 22, 2025.
The detailed version
- Bautisa v. TAP Air Portugal · No. 1:24-cv-00503
- Rochon
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
Javier Bautista asked the court to reopen his case. He stated, among other things, that TAP Air Portugal had not served him with documents from its federal-court filings, including the notice removing the case from state court to federal court.
Service and Removal Concerns
The court noted that federal law requires a defendant that removes a civil action to promptly give written notice of the removal and file a copy of that notice with the state-court clerk. TAP had filed proof that it served Bautista with several other filings, including its opposition to remand and later letters, but it had not filed proof that it served him with the notice of removal. The state-court docket also did not show whether TAP filed the notice of removal in the small-claims court.
Order
The court directed TAP to file proof that it served Bautista with the notice of removal and to explain whether the notice was filed in small-claims court. The court also directed TAP to submit a letter of no more than three pages addressing whether the case should be reopened under Rule 60(b)(4), a rule concerning relief from a judgment that is legally void. Both submissions were due April 22, 2025. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not decide the motion to reopen in this order. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Bautista a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.