Keane v. Banks
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-05104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Keane v. Banks, Judge Torres set briefing deadlines and paused the venue-transfer motion pending the remand motion.
The plaintiffs, Antoine Keane and the listed entities, and the defendants, Cynthia Banks and 982 SW 159 DR LLC, are affected by the briefing deadlines and pause in venue-motion briefing.
What happened
In Keane v. Banks, the plaintiffs asked for more time to respond to the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to another court. The defendants agreed to that request. The parties also disputed the deadline for responding to the plaintiffs’ motion to send the case back.
The court ruled that the defendants’ response to the remand motion was due July 18, 2025. It put briefing on the defendants’ venue-transfer motion on hold until it decides the remand motion, because the court must first determine whether it has authority to hear the case.
Judge Analisa Torres also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 12 and 13. This order did not decide either the remand motion or the venue-transfer motion.
The detailed version
- Keane v. Banks · No. 1:25-cv-05104
- Analisa Torres
- July 18, 2025
Background
Antoine Keane, individually and as principal of the listed plaintiff entities, and those entities asked the Court for an extension of time to respond to Cynthia Banks and 982 SW 159 DR LLC’s motion to transfer venue. The defendants consented to that request. The parties also submitted letters about the deadline for the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, meaning a request to return the case to the court from which it was removed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court stated that removal is permitted only for cases within its original jurisdiction and that it cannot act without subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over the case. It therefore decided that it would address the plaintiffs’ remand motion before ruling on the defendants’ venue-transfer motion.
Disposition
The Court ordered the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ remand motion by July 18, 2025. It held briefing on the defendants’ motion to transfer venue in abeyance, meaning it paused that briefing, until the Court disposes of the remand motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 12 and 13. The order did not decide the remand motion or the venue-transfer motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.