Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 20, 2021

Torres v. Wakefield & Associates

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-09343
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureConsumer Credit
In one sentence

In Torres v. Wakefield & Associates, Judge Vyskocil granted Torres’s motion to remand, sending the case from federal court back to New York state court.

Who this affects

The ruling returns Emmanuel Torres’s case against Wakefield & Associates and Rural Metro Ambulance Corp. to New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and closes the federal case. The defendants may raise preemption arguments as a defense in state court.

What happened

Emmanuel Torres sued Wakefield & Associates and Rural Metro Ambulance Corp. in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. Rural Metro removed the case to federal court, claiming federal-question jurisdiction, and Torres asked the federal court to send it back.

Rural Metro argued that the Fair Credit Reporting Act could preempt some of Torres’s state-law claims. The court explained that ordinary preemption is usually a defense, not a basis for moving a case to federal court, and that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not completely preempt all state-law claims. Torres’s complaint did not allege a violation of federal law.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the motion to remand, directed that the claims be litigated in New York state court, and asked the Clerk to close the federal case and return it to New York Supreme Court, Bronx County.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Torres v. Wakefield & Associates · No. 1:20-cv-09343
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 20, 2021

Background

The case was originally filed in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. Rural Metro Ambulance Corp. removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 6, 2020, stating that Wakefield & Associates consented to removal. Rural Metro asserted federal-question jurisdiction.

Torres timely moved to remand, arguing that his complaint did not specifically seek relief under a federal statute. Rural Metro opposed the motion. Wakefield & Associates did not file anything concerning the motion, and no reply was filed.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that the party removing a case has the burden of showing that removal is proper. Rural Metro relied on decisions discussing whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act and, to a lesser extent, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act preempted certain state-law claims. Rural Metro’s position was that preemption meant Torres could succeed only by bringing federal claims.

The court explained that whether the pleaded claims could ultimately succeed was not the question for removal. Ordinary preemption is generally a defense to be raised in state court. A narrow exception, called complete preemption, exists when a federal statute has such extraordinary preemptive force that a state-law claim within the statute’s scope is treated as a federal claim for jurisdictional purposes.

The court acknowledged that the Fair Credit Reporting Act may preempt some claims, including certain claims under New York General Business Law § 349 involving a defendant’s duties as a provider of information to credit-reporting agencies. But the court agreed with the majority of courts that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not completely preempt all state-law claims and therefore does not provide a basis for removing Torres’s complaint when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law.

Disposition

The court held that Torres’s claims should be litigated in New York state court and that the defendants could raise preemption arguments there as a defense. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the motion to remand. The Clerk was requested to close the federal case, remand it to New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and mail Torres a copy of the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.