Mungin v. City of New York DSS/HRA/DHS
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05438
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mungin v. City of New York DSS/HRA/DHS, Judge Swain remanded the action because only a state-court defendant may remove a case.
Christopher Mungin and the defendants named in the action: City of New York DSS/HRA/DHS, the Office of the Comptroller, Home Life Services Inc., and Queens Family Residence LLC.
What happened
Mungin v. City of New York DSS/HRA/DHS began when Christopher Mungin, representing himself, filed a federal complaint referring to an ongoing New York state-court case involving the same defendants. He then filed a notice of removal, seeking to move that state case to federal court.
The court held that removal was improper because Mungin was the state-court plaintiff, not a defendant. The court also explained that answering defendants’ defenses did not create a right to remove the case.
Judge Swain remanded the action to New York State Supreme Court, New York County, directed the Clerk to send that court a copy of the order, and closed the federal action. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mungin v. City of New York DSS/HRA/DHS · No. 1:25-cv-05438
- Laura Swain
- July 21, 2025
Background
Christopher Mungin, who was representing himself, filed this action against “City of New York DSS/HRA/DHS,” the Office of the Comptroller, Home Life Services Inc., and Queens Family Residence LLC. His complaint referred to an ongoing case against the same defendants in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, and indicated that he intended to remove that case to federal court.
Mungin filed a notice of removal on July 14, 2025. The complaint and notice included filings from the state-court matter, including his opposition to affirmative defenses in the defendants’ answer. The court treated the notice of removal, filed as ECF 6, as the operative pleading. The court had previously granted Mungin permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Court’s analysis
Federal law permits a defendant in a state-court action to remove the case to federal district court when the federal court has original jurisdiction. The court explained that only a state-court defendant may file a notice of removal. A party who was the plaintiff in the state-court action cannot remove it.
The court also explained that federal law does not permit removal based on a counterclaim. To the extent Mungin sought removal because he had answered the defendants’ affirmative defenses, that circumstance did not permit removal. The court therefore concluded that removal was improper.
Disposition
The action was remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County. The Clerk was directed to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal action. All pending matters were terminated. The order did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.