Garvey v. Cushner
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-05946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Garvey v. Cushner, Judge Roman’s filing seeks $13,091 in fees after remand, but the provided text does not clearly show the ruling.
The fee request concerns Lawrence A. Garvey and defendants Todd S. Cushner and The Law Office of Todd Cushner & Associates, P.C.; the provided text does not establish whether any fees were awarded or imposed.
What happened
Garvey v. Cushner concerns Lawrence A. Garvey’s request for costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees after defendants removed his state-law lawsuit to federal court. The lawsuit involved alleged breaches of contract and fiduciary duty and conversion related to a former law firm’s debts and obligations.
According to the motion, a bankruptcy judge later sent the case back to state court because the federal court lacked jurisdiction, and also cited mandatory and discretionary abstention as alternative grounds. Garvey asks for $13,091 under the federal removal statute, arguing that the removal caused unnecessary expense and delay.
The provided document identifies Judge Nelson S. Roman, but it is primarily Garvey’s motion and does not clearly state whether the court granted or denied the fee request. The apparent ruling text at the beginning is garbled, so the final disposition cannot be determined reliably.
The detailed version
- Garvey v. Cushner · No. 7:19-cv-05946
- Nelson Roman
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
The provided document is a motion filed by Lawrence A. Garvey under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a federal statute that allows a court to award costs and attorney’s fees after a case is sent back to state court. The defendants are identified as Todd S. Cushner and The Law Office of Todd Cushner & Associates, P.C.
The underlying state-court lawsuit asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. The motion says those claims arose from disputes about financial obligations of the parties’ former law firm, Garvey Cushner & Associates, PLLC. Garvey alleged that Cushner failed to contribute to the firm’s obligations and that defendants retained and used money owed to the former firm.
Removal and Remand
The motion states that defendants removed the state-court case to the Southern District of New York and sought to transfer it to the Bankruptcy Court. Garvey then moved to send the case back to state court and requested fees and costs related to the removal. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (3), and (6), according to the motion.
The motion reports that, at a September 30, 2019 hearing, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain granted Garvey’s motion to remand in its entirety. The reported reasons included lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, mandatory abstention, and discretionary remand and abstention. The motion also reports that the motion to dismiss was denied as moot and that the bankruptcy court deferred the attorney’s-fee issue to the state court. Garvey’s filing argues that the federal district court retained authority to decide the fee request because it was a separate matter connected to the remand.
Requested Relief
Garvey asks for $13,091 in costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees. He argues that defendants had no objectively reasonable basis for removing claims that were based only on state law and that the removal forced him to spend time and money litigating in federal court before the case returned to state court. The motion cites cases discussing fairness, the circumstances of the remand, and the purpose of deterring improper removal.
Disposition
The provided text does not clearly contain the court’s ruling on Garvey’s fee motion. It reproduces Garvey’s request and includes garbled text near the beginning that cannot be reliably read as a grant, denial, or other disposition. Judge Nelson S. Roman is identified in the filing, but the final outcome of the motion cannot be determined from the supplied text.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.