SFMB Management, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-05041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In SFMB Management v. Starr Surplus, Judge Furman granted remand because Starr was barred from removing the case under the forum-defendant rule.
SFMB Management, LLC and Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company; the action was returned to New York state court.
What happened
SFMB Management, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company began in New York state court and was removed to federal court by Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
Starr moved to return the case to state court, stating that it was a New York citizen and therefore could not remove the case based only on diversity of citizenship after being served.
Judge Furman granted the remand motion and sent the case back to the New York Supreme Court in New York County. The court said pending motions were moot, canceled conferences, and directed the clerk to close the federal case.
The detailed version
- SFMB Management, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-05041
- Jesse Furman
- June 11, 2021
Background
Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company removed this action from the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 8, 2021. On June 11, Starr moved to withdraw its notice of removal and asked the federal court to remand, or return, the action to state court.
Reason for Remand
Starr stated that it was a citizen of New York. The court explained that the forum-defendant rule bars removal based solely on diversity of citizenship when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed. The opinion applied that rule to Starr's removal.
Ruling and Effect
The court granted Starr's motion for remand and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The court stated that any pending motions were moot, canceled any conferences, and directed the clerk to close the federal case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.