Henderson v. Radegen Sports Management LLC and Alexander Radetsky
Ryan Henderson v. Radegen Sports Management LLC and Alexander Radetsky, individually
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-01020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ryan Henderson v. Radegen Sports Management LLC, Judge Torres denied remand and denied defendants’ request for Rule 11 sanctions.
Ryan Henderson’s case remains in federal court rather than being returned to state court, while Radegen Sports Management LLC and Alexander Radetsky did not receive the requested Rule 11 sanctions. The court did not decide the merits of Henderson’s employment-discrimination claims.
What happened
Ryan Henderson sued Radegen Sports Management LLC and Alexander Radetsky under New York State and New York City human-rights laws, alleging employment discrimination. Defendants moved the case from state court to federal court before they were served, relying on diversity of citizenship.
Henderson asked the federal court to send the case back to state court, arguing that the forum-defendant rule barred removal. Defendants also asked for sanctions, but their sanctions motion did not follow the required filing and advance-service procedures.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that removal was allowed because defendants removed the case before they were served, and the parties were completely diverse with more than $75,000 in dispute. Judge Torres denied Henderson’s motion to remand and denied defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
The detailed version
- Henderson v. Radegen Sports Management LLC and Alexander Radetsky · No. 1:25-cv-01020
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
Ryan Henderson filed suit in New York state court against Radegen Sports Management LLC and Alexander Radetsky, individually. He alleged employment discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction before either defendant had been served.
The court stated that Henderson alleged conduct including unwanted touching, insulting comments, an assault, and retaliation. He sought damages for emotional distress, lost wages, back pay, front pay, and medical expenses. The opinion did not decide whether those allegations were true or whether they established discrimination.
Motion to Remand
Henderson asked the court to remand, or return, the case to state court. He argued that the forum-defendant rule barred removal because defendants were citizens of New York, where the case had been filed.
The court rejected that argument under Second Circuit precedent. The forum-defendant rule does not apply until a home-state defendant has been served under state law. Defendants removed the case on February 5, 2025, before Radegen was served on March 4 and Radetsky was served on April 8.
The court also found diversity jurisdiction. Henderson was a citizen of New Jersey. Radetsky was a citizen of New York, and Radegen, a limited liability company whose sole member was Radetsky, was therefore also a citizen of New York. The parties were completely diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court concluded that removal was proper and denied Henderson’s motion to remand.
Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
Defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 11, which can penalize certain improper filings. The court denied that motion because it did not satisfy Rule 11’s required procedures: the motion had to be filed separately and served on the opposing party at least 21 days before being filed with the court.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand and denied Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Judge Analisa Torres directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 8. The opinion did not resolve the underlying employment-discrimination claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.