Alleyne v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-09598
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alleyne v. Wells Fargo, Judge Furman granted remand because Wells Fargo did not independently provide written consent to removal.
The ruling returns Taquan Alleyne’s case against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and All Pro Capital Group, LLC, to the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, and closes the federal case.
What happened
In Alleyne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Taquan Alleyne sued Wells Fargo and All Pro Capital Group in New York state court over injuries allegedly suffered in a construction accident. All Pro removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, stating that Wells Fargo consented, but Wells Fargo did not join the removal notice or file written consent.
The court held that federal law and Second Circuit precedent required each defendant to independently and unambiguously consent in writing to removal. All Pro acknowledged that Wells Fargo had not submitted written consent within the required thirty days, and the court rejected All Pro’s argument that Wells Fargo’s alleged verbal consent was enough. The court did not reach Alleyne’s other arguments for remand.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Alleyne’s motion to remand, directed the Clerk to send the case to the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, and ordered the federal case closed.
The detailed version
- Alleyne v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association · No. 1:21-cv-09598
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
Taquan Alleyne brought a personal-injury lawsuit in New York state court after allegedly being injured in a construction accident. The defendants were Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., described as the mortgagee in possession of the property, and All Pro Capital Group, LLC, described as the general contractor hired to perform construction work there.
All Pro filed a notice removing the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, invoking diversity jurisdiction. All Pro stated that it was removing the case with Wells Fargo’s consent, but Wells Fargo did not join the notice of removal. The opinion also states that Wells Fargo had not filed written confirmation of its consent.
Motion to Remand
Alleyne moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. He argued that the removal violated the “rule of unanimity” in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), which generally requires all properly joined and served defendants to join in or consent to removal.
The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that a defendant that does not join the removal notice must independently express consent to removal. The court explained that district courts in the Second Circuit require each defendant to submit written consent that unambiguously agrees to removal, even when the removing defendant represents that the other defendant consented.
All Pro conceded that Wells Fargo had not submitted written consent within thirty days of removal, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B). All Pro argued that the rule was nevertheless satisfied because Wells Fargo had verbally consented through counsel. The court declined to follow decisions from other federal circuits that supported that argument, concluding that those decisions conflicted with the authority governing courts in the Second Circuit.
Ruling
The court concluded that the removal did not comply with the required procedure and that the case had to be remanded. The court did not decide Alleyne’s additional arguments that removal was untimely and that other necessary parties would defeat diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Alleyne’s motion to remand. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, remand the case to the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, for further proceedings, and close the federal case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.