Kupferberg v. Baez
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-08653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Kupferberg v. Baez, Judge Ramos remanded the case to state court but denied Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs.
The case returns to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs was denied, and the federal defendants’ removal was found procedurally defective.
What happened
In Kupferberg v. Baez, Beau Kupferberg and Beau Enterprises LLC sued Freddy Baez and several companies in New York state court. Baez removed the case to federal court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states or countries.
The court found that removal before service on a New York defendant was permitted, and that the amended removal notice was acceptable. But it ruled that Allied Universal was not merely a nominal defendant and that the defendants did not satisfy the requirement that all properly served defendants consent to removal. The court also found that the defendants did not adequately support their allegations about several companies’ citizenship, so they did not establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Ramos granted the motion to remand and ordered the case returned to the New York Supreme Court. He denied Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs because the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for attempting removal.
The detailed version
- Kupferberg v. Baez · No. 1:24-cv-08653
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 13, 2025
Background
Beau Kupferberg and Beau Enterprises LLC sued Freddy Baez, HCL Technologies Limited doing business as HCLTech, HCL America, Inc., Barclays Investment Bank, Barclays Investment Bank Delaware, and Allied Universal Security Services in New York state court. Plaintiffs alleged that Baez accused them of stealing laptops from Barclays and selling them online. They alleged that the accusations led to Kupferberg’s removal from Barclays’ building, their exclusion from Barclays’ offices, and their later termination. Plaintiffs also alleged that Baez continued making false statements about Kupferberg.
Plaintiffs originally filed the state-court complaint without a lawyer. Baez removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete diversity between the plaintiffs and defendants and more than $75,000 in controversy. Baez later filed an amended removal notice on behalf of himself, HCL Technologies Limited, and HCL America. The amended notice stated that HCL America and HCL Technologies Limited consented to removal.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court. They argued that removal was improper because a New York defendant had been served before removal, because all required defendants had not consented within the statutory period, and because the removal notices did not adequately establish the parties’ citizenship. Plaintiffs also requested attorney’s fees and costs caused by the removal.
Court’s Analysis
The court first ruled that the removal qualified under the “snap removal” rule. That rule permits removal before a forum-state defendant has been formally served. The court found that Plaintiffs did not provide an affidavit of service or other formal proof showing that Allied had been served before the amended removal notice was filed on December 9, 2024. Informal contact with Allied’s counsel showed notice of the lawsuit but did not establish formal service. The court therefore concluded that no New York forum defendant had been properly served when the case was removed.
The court also held that the amended removal notice was permissible. The original notice had been timely filed, and the amended notice clarified the existing diversity-jurisdiction basis rather than adding a new basis for removal. The court found that HCL America, the only defendant shown to have been served at the relevant time, had provided written consent.
The court nevertheless found that Allied was not a nominal defendant. A nominal defendant is one against whom no meaningful claim could be stated and who has little or no interest in the outcome. Plaintiffs’ allegations implicated Allied’s security personnel in escorting Kupferberg from the building and helping ban Plaintiffs from the workplace. The court therefore ruled that Allied’s consent was required. Because that consent was not obtained, the rule requiring the necessary defendants to consent to removal was not satisfied.
The court separately ruled that the defendants had not adequately established diversity jurisdiction. Their allegations concerning the citizenship of HCL Technologies Limited, HCL America, Barclays Investment Bank, Barclays Investment Bank Delaware, and Allied were based on counsel’s reasonable investigation or information and belief. The defendants did not provide details about the sources or grounds for those allegations. The court held that they therefore failed to support complete diversity with sufficient proof.
Attorney’s Fees and Disposition
The court denied Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Although the removal was ultimately unsuccessful, the court found that the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. The court noted the uncertainty about service in a paper-filed state-court case and the defendants’ arguments concerning Allied’s status and HCL Technologies Limited’s citizenship. The court found no indication of bad faith or an improper purpose.
Judge Ramos granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and directed the Clerk of Court to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. He denied Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.