Sinclair v. Vianca Caba
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-03458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sinclair v. Caba, Judge Vyskocil ordered Defendant to explain whether her state-court filing notified Plaintiff of removal.
Defendant Alyssa Vianco Caba must explain whether her filing in state court provided the written notice of removal required by federal law; Plaintiff Amy Sinclair and the court are affected by that clarification.
What happened
In Amy Sinclair v. Alyssa Vianco Caba, Defendant removed the action to federal court and filed an affidavit stating that she served Plaintiff by filing the removal notice in New York County Supreme Court. Plaintiff had not appeared in the federal case more than 30 days later.
Federal law requires a defendant removing a case to notify the opposing parties in writing and file the removal notice with the state court. The order questioned whether filing the notice with the state court was enough to provide the required written notice to Plaintiff.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered Defendant to file a letter by June 12, 2025, explaining why her state-court filing satisfied the notice requirement. The order did not decide whether the removal was valid or whether service was sufficient.
The detailed version
- Sinclair v. Vianca Caba · No. 1:25-cv-03458
- Vyskocil
- May 29, 2025
Background
Defendant removed this action to federal court on April 25, 2025, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1446 requires a defendant removing a civil action to file a notice of removal in federal court, give written notice of the removal to all opposing parties, and file a copy of the notice with the state court.
On the day of removal, Defendant filed an affidavit of service for the notice of removal, a required procedural statement, and a civil cover sheet. The affidavit stated that Defendant served Plaintiff by filing the notice of removal in New York County Supreme Court. More than 30 days later, Plaintiff had not appeared in the federal case.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Defendant to file a letter by June 12, 2025, explaining why filing the notice of removal with the state court was sufficient to satisfy the separate requirement that Defendant give written notice of removal to all opposing parties.
The court reminded the parties that failure to comply with the order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Southern District of New York’s local rules, the judge’s individual practice rules, or discovery and other obligations could result in sanctions. The listed possible sanctions included monetary penalties, dismissal or preclusion of claims or defenses, and preclusion of arguments or evidence.
The order did not determine whether Defendant had complied with the notice requirement, whether the removal was valid, or the merits of any underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.