Multare v. Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc.
Diana Multare and Eric Houston, as Power of Attorney for Diana Multare and Individually v. Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc., Sunrise Senior Living Services Inc., and The Apsley
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-09628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Multare v. Sunrise, Judge Caproni ordered the parties to explain why the case should not return to state court because removal may have been untimely.
The plaintiffs, the three defendants, and the case’s forum: the parties must explain whether the case should remain in federal court or be returned to New York state court.
What happened
In Diana Multare and Eric Houston v. Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc., Sunrise Senior Living Services Inc., and The Apsley, the defendants moved the case from New York state court to federal court on November 18, 2025.
The plaintiffs then asked the federal court to send the case back to state court, arguing in part that the move to federal court was too late. On December 2, they withdrew that request and said both sides believed the case should remain in federal court.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered both sides to file a joint letter explaining by January 5, 2026, why the case should not instead be returned to state court because the removal may have missed a required deadline. She also paused the existing schedule for briefing the plaintiffs’ request to return the case to state court.
The detailed version
- Multare v. Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-09628
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
The case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 18, 2025. On November 19, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, meaning a request to return the case to state court. They argued, among other things, that Defendants’ removal was untimely.
On December 2, Plaintiffs notified the Court that they were withdrawing the motion to remand. Plaintiffs stated that both parties agreed that continuing in federal court would best serve the interests of justice.
Court’s Order
The Court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), which generally requires a notice of removal to be filed within 30 days after the defendant receives the initial pleading or, in certain circumstances, after service of the summons. The Court described this deadline as mandatory and noted that removal requirements must be followed strictly. It also cited authority stating that late agreement by the parties does not resolve a failure to comply with the removal statute.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the parties to show cause through a joint letter filed no later than January 5, 2026, why the case should not be remanded for untimely removal. The Court did not state that it had finally remanded the case. It also held in abeyance, meaning temporarily paused, the existing schedule for Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and Plaintiffs’ reply.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.