Torres v. Tessing
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-04848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Torres v. Tessing, Judge Furman remanded the case to state court because defendants conceded their second removal was untimely.
Lisben Torres, Robert E. Tessing, and the other defendants; the case returns to the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County.
What happened
In Torres v. Tessing, defendants removed the case from New York state court to federal court for a second time, relying on discovery documents to show that the amount in dispute met the requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously remanded the case because defendants had not adequately shown that requirement was met.
The defendants admitted that they filed their second removal notice 35 days after receiving the documents that showed the amount in dispute. They argued that COVID-19-related circumstances should excuse the delay, but the court explained that the 30-day removal deadline is strictly enforced.
Judge Jesse M. Furman remanded the case to the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County. He directed the Clerk of Court to close the federal case and return the matter to that state court.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Tessing · No. 1:19-cv-04848
- Jesse Furman
- June 29, 2020
Background
Lisben Torres sued Robert E. Tessing et al. in the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County. Defendants first removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 24, 2019. On June 28, 2019, the court remanded the case because defendants had not alleged facts sufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the amount required for diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants filed a second notice of removal on April 23, 2020. They alleged that bills of particulars received during discovery established the amount in controversy. A bill of particulars is a document providing details about a party’s claims, including the damages sought. The second removal notice appeared potentially untimely because the relevant bills had been served more than 30 days before defendants filed the notice.
Issue and Arguments
The court ordered defendants to explain why the case should not be remanded for failure to meet the removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Defendants conceded that they filed their amended notice of removal no earlier than 35 days after receiving Torres’s first and second supplemental bills of particulars. They argued that COVID-19-related “extenuating circumstances” should excuse the delay.
Ruling
The court rejected defendants’ argument. It stated that the 30-day deadline for removal is rigorously enforced and that failure to file within that period requires remand to state court. Judge Jesse M. Furman therefore remanded the case to the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the federal case and return the matter to the state court clerk.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.