Hoechstetter v. Columbia University
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-02978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Hoechstetter v. Columbia University, Judge Carter denied remand, ruling removal was completed before plaintiffs dropped their federal claims.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ request to return the case to state court and the defendants’ ability to keep the removed case in federal court. The court retained jurisdiction over the removed action.
What happened
In Hoechstetter v. Columbia University, the plaintiffs asked the federal court to return their case to state court. They argued that the defendants used the wrong version of their amended complaint when removing the case and that the latest version contained only state-law claims.
The case began in state court with claims under both federal and state law. Defendants filed a removal notice in federal court and notified the plaintiffs on April 3, 2019, then filed the notice in state court later that day. The plaintiffs filed a later version of the complaint that removed the federal claims, but that occurred after removal was complete.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. held that defendants attached the only amended complaint that had both been filed and served, and that the later changes could not undo federal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to remand.
The detailed version
- Hoechstetter v. Columbia University · No. 1:19-cv-02978
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in New York state court accusing a medical doctor of sexually abusing women while providing gynecological and/or obstetric care. The initial complaint and the first version of the amended complaint asserted both federal and state claims. The first amended complaint was filed on March 27, 2019, and served on defendants the next day.
On April 3, defendants filed a notice of removal in federal court and notified plaintiffs. Defendants attached the first amended complaint, which was the only version that had both been filed and served on them at that time. Later that day, plaintiffs submitted a corrected version of the amended complaint to the state court. On April 4, plaintiffs submitted a third version that removed all federal claims. The state court treated the corrected versions as re-filings and kept the original March 27 filing date.
Plaintiffs’ Motion
Plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court. They argued that defendants attached the wrong version of the amended complaint to the removal notice. They also argued that the latest amended complaint contained only state-law claims, leaving the federal court without subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs further argued that the first and second versions were only draft pleadings because the state clerk’s office had identified filing errors and asked them to correct those documents. They also contended that defendants did not complete removal until they filed a later certification in federal court confirming that the notice had been filed in state court.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that removal requires three steps: filing the removal notice in federal court, notifying the opposing parties, and filing a copy of the notice in the state court. A defendant must attach the pleadings and other documents that were served on it. Because the initial complaint and the later corrected versions had not been served on defendants when removal occurred, defendants were not required to attach those documents. The court found that defendants properly attached the only amended complaint that was both filed and served.
The court also held that defendants completed removal on April 3, when they filed the notice in federal court, notified plaintiffs, and filed a copy in state court. The later federal-court certification was an unnecessary additional step and was not required to complete removal.
The court rejected the argument that the corrected versions were merely drafts. It reasoned that a document is no longer a draft once it is filed or re-filed, even if it contains errors. By filing and serving a pleading that included federal claims, plaintiffs triggered defendants’ right to remove the case. Defendants perfected that right before plaintiffs filed the third version eliminating the federal claims.
Finally, the court held that plaintiffs could not eliminate federal jurisdiction after removal by voluntarily withdrawing the federal claims. The court stated that this rule applies when a defendant removes a case from state court, unlike a case initially filed by the plaintiff in federal court, because otherwise a plaintiff could undo the defendant’s statutory choice to remove.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the motion to remand. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.