Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

Ashu Shukla, representing himself when the remand motion was filed, originally sued Deloitte Consulting LLP in New York state court over alleged wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. His original complaint asserted state-law claims. During the state-court litigation, Shukla proposed amended complaints that added federal claims, including claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and several federal criminal statutes.

Deloitte filed a notice of removal on November 14, 2019, moving the case from state court to federal court. Shukla then moved for remand, which means returning the case to state court. The opinion states that District Judge Alison Nathan later approved the parties’ written consent allowing Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron to enter a final order on the remand motion.

Arguments

Shukla argued that Deloitte waived its right to remove by litigating in state court, filing motions, participating in a state-court conference, and allegedly violating a state-court instruction against further filings. He also argued that Deloitte’s notice of removal was procedurally defective because it allegedly omitted or failed to mention certain documents and information, lacked consent from Shukla or the state court, and misidentified the case on the civil cover sheet. Shukla further alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and bad faith.

Deloitte responded that it removed the case within 30 days after receiving the first pleading or other filing showing that the case had become removable. It argued that its state-court actions did not waive removal, that its notice complied with the governing statute, and that it had acted in good faith.

Court’s analysis

The court held that removal was timely. The original state-court complaint did not assert federal claims. The first proposed pleading asserting federal claims was filed on October 15, 2019, and Deloitte filed its notice of removal exactly 30 days later, on November 14, 2019.

The court also held that Deloitte did not waive removal. Although waiver can occur in extreme circumstances when a defendant clearly intends to remain in state court, Deloitte’s earlier motion to dismiss was filed before Shukla asserted federal claims. The court characterized Deloitte’s later opposition to amendment and participation in the state-court conference as insufficient to show an intent to continue litigating in state court. The court also ruled that removal did not require the federal claims to be meritorious or accepted by Deloitte.

The court rejected Shukla’s alleged filing defects. It found that Deloitte’s notice included the required short statement of the grounds for federal jurisdiction and the required process, pleadings, and orders. The court further ruled that Deloitte did not need to attach a request for judicial intervention or pending motions, did not need Shukla’s or the state court’s consent, and did not submit a defective civil cover sheet.

Finally, the court found no fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith. Shukla’s belief that the state court might rule favorably on his motions was not a basis for remand. The court concluded that Deloitte had a valid and timely basis for removal and that the state court’s instruction against further filings did not prevent Deloitte from exercising its federal removal right. The court also stated that the federal court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The opinion did not decide the merits of Shukla’s underlying employment or other claims.