Marvin v. Gallagher
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-08987
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mark Marvin v. Kerry Gallagher, Judge Swain remanded Marvin’s attempted removal to New York state court because removal was improper.
Mark Marvin, Kerry Gallagher, and the underlying state-court action in Orange County, New York.
What happened
In Mark Marvin v. Kerry Gallagher, Mark Marvin, who was representing himself, filed a document attempting to move a case from New York Supreme Court in Orange County to federal court. The document was unclear and appeared to concern a property-tax or foreclosure-related dispute.
The court found several problems. Marvin did not appear to be the defendant who could remove a state-court case, and he did not show that the federal court had authority to hear the matter. He also did not provide the required explanation and state-court documents or show that he filed the notice on time.
Judge Swain ruled that removal was improper and remanded the action to New York Supreme Court, Orange County. She directed the Clerk of Court to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal case; all pending matters were terminated.
The detailed version
- Marvin v. Gallagher · No. 1:25-cv-08987
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
Mark Marvin, appearing without a lawyer, filed a notice of removal in the Southern District of New York. The notice was captioned for the New York State Supreme Court, Orange County, and appeared to seek transfer of an action from that court to the federal court. The opinion states that Marvin appeared to have filed the state-court action himself, although the filing did not clearly identify the underlying proceeding.
Marvin referred to a federal case and a pending appeal and asserted that the federal court had “joint jurisdiction.” He also challenged statements concerning a foreclosure petition, alleged that a property-tax assessment was fraudulent and improperly denied a tax reduction, and referred to a state real-estate-fraud statute. He attached a delinquent property-tax payment stub addressed to Rose M. Marvin. The notice did not include the state-court process, pleadings, or orders, and it did not state when the state action had been filed.
Court’s Analysis
Federal law generally allows a defendant in a state-court action to remove the case to federal district court only when the federal court would have original jurisdiction. The court identified three independent problems with Marvin’s attempted removal.
First, only a defendant in the state-court action may remove it. Marvin did not appear to be a defendant, so he could not use the removal procedure on the information before the court.
Second, even if Marvin had been the defendant, he did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s legal authority to hear the dispute. The notice did not suggest that the state action raised a federal question. It also did not show diversity jurisdiction, which requires the opposing parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.
Third, the notice was procedurally defective. It lacked the required short and plain statement explaining the grounds for removal and did not attach copies of the state-court process, pleadings, and orders. The notice also gave no indication that it was filed within the required 30-day period.
Disposition
The court concluded that the case could not be removed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the court remanded the action to the New York State Supreme Court, Orange County. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to send that court a copy of the order and to close the federal action. The order states that all pending matters were terminated.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.