El Bey v. Lopez
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-09978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In El Bey v. Lopez, Judge Stanton remanded the attempted removal because the notice was deficient, directed to the wrong district, and likely untimely.
Aqueelah Sovereign El Bey’s attempted removal of matters from the Rochester City Court Criminal and Civil Division was sent back to that court; the federal case was closed.
What happened
In El Bey v. Lopez, Aqueelah Sovereign El Bey tried to move several matters from the Rochester City Court Criminal and Civil Division to the Southern District of New York. The court had allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that the notice did not clearly explain the cases or provide copies of the required papers. It also found that Rochester is in the Western District of New York, not the Southern District, and that the removal notice was likely filed more than 30 days after the relevant matters began.
Judge Louis L. Stanton ruled that the removal was improper and remanded the action to the Rochester City Court Criminal and Civil Division. He directed the Clerk to close the federal case and terminate all pending matters.
The detailed version
- El Bey v. Lopez · No. 1:19-cv-09978
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
Aqueelah Sovereign El Bey filed a notice of removal seeking to move several matters identified by case numbers from the Rochester City Court Criminal and Civil Division to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The opinion states that she appeared without a lawyer. Abdul Hadi El Bey originally filed the action with her, but the court had dismissed him from the case after he failed to submit an application to proceed without paying fees or pay the required fees.
Court’s Analysis
Removal is the process for moving a case from state court to federal court. The court explained that a defendant may remove a state-court matter only when the federal court has original jurisdiction and the removal complies with statutory requirements.
The court identified three defects. First, the notice did not provide the required short and plain explanation of the grounds for removal, and it did not include copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on the removing party. Second, federal law permits removal only to the federal district that covers the place where the state case is pending. Rochester is in Monroe County, which lies in the Western District of New York, not this court’s district. Third, the notice was filed on October 24, 2019, while the listed matters were filed in 2015, 2017, and 2018. The court stated that the notice therefore seemed very likely to have been filed more than 30 days after the relevant deadline.
Disposition
The court concluded that the action could not be removed. Judge Louis L. Stanton remanded the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Rochester City Court Criminal and Civil Division. The Clerk was directed to send the order to that court and close the federal case; all pending matters were terminated.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.