Maher v. Nusret New York LLC

Background

Angelo Maher sued Nusret New York LLC under the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged that, while working at a steakhouse owned and operated by Nusret, he was routinely discriminated against because of his Hispanic background, was terminated after speaking out against racially motivated treatment of non-Turkish employees, and was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. He sought more than $1 million in damages.

Nusret removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Its notice of removal asserted federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and said that the case was expected to involve the Federal Arbitration Act. Maher moved to remand, arguing that the removal was untimely. The court separately required Nusret to explain why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s authority to hear the case.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court held that Maher’s pleading did not raise a federal question. Maher’s claims were based exclusively on state and city law, and his pleading did not refer to arbitration or New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7515. The Federal Arbitration Act does not independently give federal district courts subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court distinguished a Second Circuit case in which the plaintiff’s own pleading invoked § 7515 and therefore presented a federal question concerning whether the state arbitration restriction was inconsistent with federal law. Here, the possibility of arbitration and any anticipated argument under § 7515 came from Nusret, not from Maher’s pleading. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question generally must appear in the plaintiff’s complaint rather than arise only from an anticipated defense, including a federal preemption defense.

Timeliness of Removal

The court also held, as an independent ground, that removal was untimely. The summons with notice was served on Nusret on September 20, 2021, and Nusret removed the case 84 days later, on January 12, 2022. Federal law requires removal within 30 days after receipt of an initial pleading setting out the claim for relief.

The court followed Second Circuit precedent holding that a summons with notice can qualify as an initial pleading when it allows the defendant to intelligently determine whether removal is appropriate. Maher’s summons with notice identified the employment-discrimination and retaliation claims, their racial-discrimination basis, and the state and city laws involved. The court rejected Nusret’s argument that the 30-day period should instead be measured from Maher’s later-filed complaint. Nusret had conceded that the later complaint did not add a federal-rights allegation or mention an arbitration agreement, showing that the later filing did not provide information that could not already be understood from the summons with notice.

Disposition

The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and granted Maher’s motion to remand for untimely removal. Judge Castel directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, remand the action to the Supreme Court of New York County, and close the federal case.