Martin v. 3M Company
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-09395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martin v. 3M, Judge Ho ordered briefing on Tyco’s removal of the action to federal court without deciding whether removal was proper.
The plaintiffs, Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard, Inc., and the other defendants in the action are affected by the order because they must address whether the case should remain in federal court; the order does not resolve that question.
What happened
Martin et al. v. 3M Company et al. was moved from New York state court to federal court by Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard, Inc. Tyco relied on a federal law that can allow defendants acting for the federal government to remove cases to federal court.
Tyco argued that it could remove the entire action without obtaining the agreement of the other defendants. It served the other parties with the removal notice. The plaintiffs and other defendants must jointly explain their positions on removal in a letter due November 25, 2025; Tyco may reply by December 3, 2025.
In Martin et al. v. 3M Company et al., Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the parties to submit this briefing but did not decide whether removal was proper.
The detailed version
- Martin v. 3M Company · No. 1:25-cv-09395
- Ho
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
The case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. On November 10, 2025, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard, Inc., collectively called “Tyco” in the order, filed a notice removing the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was then assigned to Judge Dale E. Ho.
Tyco’s Position
Tyco relied on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), and argued that it was entitled to have its federal defense decided in federal court. Tyco also argued that it did not need to notify or obtain the consent of the other defendants to remove the entire action. The order states that Tyco served the notice of removal on all other parties.
Court’s Order
The court did not decide whether removal was proper. Instead, it ordered the plaintiffs and the other defendants to file a joint letter by November 25, 2025, explaining their respective positions on removal. The letter may not exceed 10 pages and must comply with Local Rule 7.1(b). Tyco may file a reply by December 3, 2025; its reply may not exceed 5 pages and must also comply with that rule.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.