Mogul v. New York Public Radio

Background

Fred Mogul, a journalist and reporter for New York Public Radio, alleged that he was terminated in February 2021 for allegedly plagiarizing portions of a draft story. He also alleged that Audrey Cooper, New York Public Radio’s Editor in Chief, told newsroom employees that Mogul had been fired for plagiarism. Mogul maintained that he had not plagiarized anything.

Mogul originally sued in New York Supreme Court, asserting claims for defamation, wrongful termination, denial of severance pay and benefits under New York Labor Law, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that several claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because they relied on or required interpretation of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

After removal, Mogul amended his complaint as of right and dropped the wrongful-termination, New York Labor Law, and implied-covenant claims. The only remaining claims were defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mogul then sought remand, meaning return of the case to state court.

Timeliness and Initial Removal

The court rejected Mogul’s argument that removal was untimely. The defendants had agreed to accept service by mail under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 312-a. Under that procedure, service was complete when the defendants returned the signed acknowledgment of receipt on June 8, 2021. The defendants removed the case within 30 days of that date, so removal was timely.

The court also held that removal was proper when it occurred on July 8, 2021. The original wrongful-termination, New York Labor Law, and implied-covenant claims substantially depended on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement and therefore were preempted by Section 301. That preemption supplied a federal basis for removal. The court further held that it had supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—over the original defamation and intentional-infliction claims because they were substantially related to the preempted claims.

Remaining Claims and Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court held that the remaining defamation and intentional-infliction claims were not preempted. Those claims concerned whether Cooper falsely told third parties that Mogul had plagiarized. They did not allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and did not require interpreting it. The court stated that whether Mogul had plagiarized could be decided without analyzing the agreement.

Because the federalized claims had been dropped, no federal claims remained. The court noted that the remaining claims were purely matters of state law and that there was no diversity jurisdiction. It declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts. The court emphasized that no answer had been filed, no discovery had occurred, and it had not ruled on any substantive motions. It also noted that a related case brought by Mogul’s union had settled, removing a possible reason to keep the cases together in federal court.

Disposition

Judge McMahon granted Mogul’s motion to remand. The court directed the Clerk of Court to remand the action to the New York Supreme Court in and for New York County, close the federal case, terminate the remand motion, and transmit the file to the state court. The opinion did not decide the merits of Mogul’s defamation or intentional-infliction claims.