Banks v. Stelger
- Louis Stanton
- 1:21-cv-01343
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Banks v. Steiger, Judge Stanton remanded a guardianship case because Queens County belongs in the Eastern District, not the Southern District.
The order affected Adam Steiger’s attempt to remove the Queens County guardianship proceeding to the Southern District of New York; the matter was returned to the New York Supreme Court in Queens County.
What happened
Banks v. Steiger involved Adam Steiger’s attempt to move a New York state-court guardianship action to the federal court in Manhattan. Steiger, who was representing himself, argued that the federal court had authority based on diversity and federal-question jurisdiction.
The court explained that a state case may be removed only to the federal district that covers the place where the state case is pending. Because the action was pending in Queens County, it belonged in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York.
Judge Louis L. Stanton remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, directed that copies of the order be sent to the parties and that court, and closed the federal case. The order did not decide the underlying guardianship allegations.
The detailed version
- Banks v. Stelger · No. 1:21-cv-01343
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 17, 2021
Background
Steven Banks, identified as the Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York, petitioned in a New York state court in Queens County for appointment of a guardian for Adam Steiger, also known as Adam Kartiganer, who was described as a person alleged to be incapacitated. Steiger removed that state-court action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and invoked diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction. He also referred to alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Steiger stated that he had learned about the guardianship proceeding, a temporary guardian had been appointed, and a hearing was planned on whether the guardianship should become permanent. He alleged that the guardianship could result in his forced relocation and the dissolution of his assets. The opinion also recounts his allegations about an earlier case and false testimony, but the court did not decide those allegations.
Issue and governing rule
A state-court action may be removed only to the federal district court that covers the place where the state action is pending. The court also explained that a federal court may remand, meaning send back, a removed case for a procedural defect or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court held that removal to the Southern District of New York was improper because Queens County is within the Eastern District of New York. The court therefore remanded the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County.
Disposition and effect
The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Steiger, send a copy to the state court, and note service on the docket. The federal action was closed, and all pending matters were terminated. The order addressed the proper federal district for removal and did not resolve the underlying guardianship proceeding.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.