Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2025

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:24-cv-06630
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio, Judge Failla granted dismissal because removal was over ten years late and denied Amelio’s request for a stay.

Who this affects

The Bank of New York Mellon, Alfonso Amelio, and the other defendants in the federal action were affected by the dismissal and closure of the case. Amelio was additionally affected by the denial of his request for a stay.

What happened

Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio concerned Alfonso Amelio’s attempt to move a case from New York state court to federal court. The Bank of New York Mellon asked the federal court to dismiss the case.

Amelio removed the case on August 26, 2024, and later submitted additional arguments supporting removal. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss, and Amelio opposed it. The opinion states that the deadline for removing the case had expired more than ten years earlier.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety. She also denied Amelio’s request to pause the case, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and remaining dates, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Amelio · No. 1:24-cv-06630
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
June 30, 2025

Background

Alfonso Amelio removed the action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, on August 26, 2024. At a November 6, 2024, pretrial conference, the Court allowed Amelio to submit supplemental briefing supporting removal. After extensions, he filed that brief on January 16, 2025.

The Bank of New York Mellon later appeared and argued that the federal action should be dismissed. The Court accepted the Bank’s letter as its motion to dismiss, without requiring a separate pre-motion conference. Amelio filed a response, and the Bank filed a reply.

Rulings

The Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety. It relied substantially on the reasons stated in the Bank’s motion and reply and held that the time for Amelio to remove the action had expired more than ten years earlier under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

The Court also denied Amelio’s request for a stay of the action. The request was included in his response to the motion to dismiss. The Court stated that Amelio’s submission of a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals did not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction.

The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, close the case, and mail a copy of the Order to Amelio at his address of record.

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.