McDaniel v. Revlon, Inc.

Background

Laura McDaniel and Edward McDaniel filed a summons and verified complaint against Revlon, Inc. in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, on May 11, 2020. Revlon filed a notice seeking to move the case from state court to federal court that same day, relying on diversity jurisdiction. The McDaniels served Revlon on May 12, 2020, by emailing the summons and complaint to Corporate Creations Network Inc., which the opinion identifies as Revlon’s registered agent for service of process in New York.

The McDaniels moved to return the case to state court and requested attorneys’ fees. Revlon argued that its removal was effective before service occurred. Revlon also contended that its email to the county clerk constituted a properly filed removal notice. A separate motion to dismiss filed by Revlon remained pending, but the court did not address it because the case was being remanded.

Remand

The court applied the forum-defendant rule, which generally prevents removal based solely on diversity of citizenship when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the case was filed.

The court held that service by email was proper. Although the McDaniels had not obtained prior court approval for an alternative method of service, the court found that Revlon’s registered agent had consented to service by email. The agent had directed the process server to email the documents and then confirmed receipt of the New York service on Revlon’s behalf on May 12, 2020. The court concluded that this exchange showed an agreement to accept service by email.

The court separately held that Revlon had not properly filed its removal notice with the state-court clerk. Revlon had emailed the clerk asking the clerk to accept the notice, but the clerk responded that the document could be electronically filed. Revlon did not respond to dispute that explanation or complete the filing. The court therefore concluded that Revlon had not satisfied the requirement to file a copy of the removal notice with the state-court clerk.

Attorneys’ Fees

The court denied the request for attorneys’ fees and other costs. Under the governing standard, fees generally are appropriate when the party removing the case lacked an objectively reasonable basis for doing so. Judge Vernon S. Broderick found that Revlon had made colorable, or reasonably arguable, arguments for removal. He noted the unusual and changing courthouse procedures during the COVID-19 public-health crisis and concluded that the McDaniels’ success was not a foregone conclusion.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the McDaniels’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. The motion to remand was granted, and the case was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The request for attorneys’ fees related to the remand motion was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the federal case.