Russell v. Lamothermic Precision Casting Corp.

Background

Travis Russell filed a wage-related class action in New York State Supreme Court, Dutchess County. The state-court filing asserted claims under New York Labor Law, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, and a New York wage regulation. It sought more than $100,000, plus costs, attorney’s fees, and punitive and statutory damages.

The defendants were Lamothermic Precision Casting Corp., also known as Lamothermic Corp., Michael Steele, and Dana Ciullo, also known as Donna Ciullo. They were served with the state-court summons with notice in December 2018. In February 2019, Russell sent the defendants a verified complaint that added claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants removed the case to federal court on March 14, 2019.

Russell moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. He argued that the removal notice was defective and that the defendants were barred from removing the case because they had allegedly defaulted by not responding to the state-court filings within the required time.

Legal standard

A defendant may remove a state-court action to federal court when the federal court has original subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction exists over claims arising under federal law. A notice of removal generally must be filed within 30 days after the defendant receives the initial pleading showing that the case is removable. If the initial pleading does not show that the case is removable, the 30-day period begins when the defendant receives a later pleading or other paper that first makes removability clear.

The removing defendants bear the burden of showing that the jurisdictional requirements and removal procedures were satisfied. The court must remand a case when subject-matter jurisdiction is absent.

Court’s analysis

The court first observed that Russell did not dispute that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims gave the court federal question jurisdiction, or that the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state claims arising from the same facts as federal claims.

The summons with notice did not identify a federal claim. Therefore, the court ruled that the 30-day removal period did not begin when the defendants received that document. Instead, the period began when they received the verified complaint on February 13, 2019, which asserted the Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The defendants removed the case 29 days later, making the removal timely.

The court rejected Russell’s argument that a state-court default, by itself, prevents removal or eliminates federal jurisdiction. The court stated that Russell had identified no authority supporting that proposed rule. The cases Russell cited did not establish that a state-court default deprived a federal court of jurisdiction.

The court also rejected challenges based on the defendants’ failure to attach affidavits of service, their statement that the action began with a verified complaint rather than a summons with notice, and the absence of a state-court attorney appearance before removal. The court characterized these as minor defects that did not require remand where the case was otherwise properly removed.

Ruling and case status

The court denied Russell’s motion to remand. It stated that the defendants had provided a legal basis for removal. The court left open the possibility that it could consider a proper application concerning a default, but cautioned that such an application was not assured of success based on the facts then presented.

The parties were directed to complete a case-management plan and scheduling order. The court also stated that, after reviewing that order, it would refer the case to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy for general pretrial purposes.