Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 29, 2025

Simpson v. Chassen

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-04004
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Simpson v. Chassen, Judge Furman remanded the case because Simpson, the state-court plaintiff, could not remove it to federal court.

Who this affects

Jeffrey Simpson, Jared Chassen, and the related state-court proceeding in New York County. The remand returned the action to state court, while the federal court kept the requests for sanctions, fees, costs, or an injunction pending.

What happened

In Simpson v. Chassen, Jeffrey Simpson, who was representing himself, removed a case from New York State Supreme Court to federal court. Jared Chassen asked the federal court to send it back quickly.

The court granted the request for expedited remand. It ruled that Simpson could not remove the case because he was the plaintiff in the state-court action; a plaintiff cannot remove a case, even when the other side has asserted counterclaims against him.

Judge Furman sent the case back to New York State Supreme Court, New York County. Requests concerning state-court orders were denied without prejudice to renewal in state court, while requests for sanctions, fees, costs, or an injunction remained pending for further briefing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Simpson v. Chassen · No. 1:25-cv-04004
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
May 29, 2025

Background

Jeffrey Simpson, proceeding without counsel, filed a notice removing the case from the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Jared Chassen moved for several forms of relief, including an expedited remand, which means sending the case back to the state court.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the removal was improper because Simpson was the plaintiff in the state-court action. Under the federal removal statutes, only a defendant may remove an action. The court rejected Simpson’s argument that counterclaims asserted against him made him a defendant who could remove the case. A state-court plaintiff cannot remove the action even when the plaintiff is defending against a counterclaim.

Ruling

The court granted the request for expedited remand and remanded the action to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County. To the extent Chassen sought relief concerning orders entered by the state court, those requests were denied without prejudice to renewal before that court. The federal court retained jurisdiction over requests for sanctions, fees, costs, or an injunction barring further removals and reserved judgment on those requests. Simpson was ordered to file any opposition by June 12, 2025, and Chassen was ordered to file any reply by June 26, 2025. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Simpson.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.