Mendez v. Rhoney
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-09754
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendez v. Rhoney, Judge Carter found Mendez acted in bad faith to delay removal, excused defendants’ late removal, and ordered a joint status report.
Mendez and the defendants were affected: the court found that Mendez acted in bad faith to delay removal, excused defendants’ delay in removing the action, and required all parties to file a joint status report.
What happened
Mendez v. Rhoney concerned defendants’ removal of a New York state-court action to federal court more than one year after the case began. Federal law generally bars diversity-based removal after one year unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.
Defendants argued that Mendez had deliberately delayed providing information about the amount in dispute to prevent removal. The court ordered the parties to explain why the case should not be sent back to state court because the removal appeared late.
Mendez’s current lawyer reported that former counsel’s delay was motivated at least partly by an effort to delay removal. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. found that Mendez acted in bad faith to prevent removal, excused the delay, resolved the court’s order to explain the delay, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report by February 10, 2021.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Rhoney · No. 1:20-cv-09754
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
Defendants removed the action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, on November 19, 2020. The state-court action had begun when Mendez filed a summons and complaint on or about August 23, 2019.
The court explained that federal law generally does not allow a case based on diversity jurisdiction to be removed more than one year after the action began. An exception applies when the district court finds that the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal. The party seeking removal has the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction is proper.
Defendants argued that removal was timely under the bad-faith exception because Mendez deliberately failed to provide information about the amount in dispute for more than one year. The court noted that courts may extend the one-year period when a plaintiff engages in strategic conduct to prevent removal, but that delay alone does not necessarily establish bad faith. The court therefore issued an order requiring the parties to explain why the case should not be returned to state court for untimely removal.
Court’s Analysis
The parties responded to that order in December 2020 and January 2021. Mendez’s current counsel stated that counsel had discussed the delay with Mendez’s former counsel. Based on that discussion, current counsel admitted that former counsel’s delay was motivated at least in part by an attempt to delay timely removal to federal court.
The court concluded that this admission established that Mendez acted in bad faith to prevent removal. It therefore excused defendants’ delay in removing the case and stated that this resolved the order requiring an explanation for the potentially untimely removal.
Disposition
The court excused defendants’ delay in removal and did not remand the action in this order. It ordered the parties to file a joint status report by February 10, 2021. The order was signed by Andrew L. Carter, Jr., United States District Judge, on January 27, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.