Parks v. Woodmont Ramapo LLC

Background

Woodmont Ramapo LLC sued Anthony Parks in state court to collect allegedly unpaid rent under a residential lease. The opinion states that Parks was proceeding without a lawyer. Parks later filed a petition to move the rent-collection case to federal court, labeling it a fraud case and asserting that it involved federal law, including the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Parks had previously sought to move the case to federal court, but the court sent it back to state court in July 2023 because Parks had consented to that court’s jurisdiction. He filed the removal petition at issue on October 7, 2024. Woodmont moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. Magistrate Judge Katherine Parker recommended granting that motion. No party objected to the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Because no objections were filed, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. He adopted the recommendation in full.

First, the court held that Parks filed the removal petition more than two years after he was served with the pleadings in the state-court case. Federal law generally allows removal within 30 days after service of the initial pleading. The court concluded that Parks’s failure to meet that deadline prevented removal.

Parks argued that he had not been properly served because Woodmont had changed its management and name to Sterlington Holdings, LLC. The court rejected that argument as unrelated to service. It explained that Parks did not claim he failed to receive the pleadings or that service itself was defective. Instead, his argument challenged whether Woodmont had standing to sue. The state court had rejected that challenge, and the decision had been affirmed on appeal. The court also stated that Woodmont’s change in name or ownership did not excuse the late removal.

Second, the court held that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking. The underlying case was a state-law landlord’s action to collect overdue rent. The state-court complaint did not present a federal question, and Parks could not create federal-question jurisdiction by referring to federal issues in his removal petition. The requirements for diversity jurisdiction were also not met because both entities were citizens of New York and the amount in controversy was $17,968.80, below the more-than-$75,000 statutory threshold.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer granted Woodmont’s request to remand by adopting the Report and Recommendation in full. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and remand the case to state court. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed.