Hailemariam v. Amtrak
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-01503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Hailemariam v. Amtrak, Judge Seibel granted remand because Amtrak did not timely show New Rochelle’s independent consent to removal.
Anthony Hailemariam, Amtrak, and the City of New Rochelle. The case was returned to New York state court, and the federal court did not resolve the underlying injury claims.
What happened
In Hailemariam v. Amtrak, Anthony Hailemariam sued Amtrak and the City of New Rochelle in New York state court over injuries from a fall allegedly caused by a defective condition. Amtrak later moved the case to federal court, stating that the City agreed.
Hailemariam asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that the City had not given the court its own written consent to removal within the required 30-day period. Amtrak argued that an email showing the City’s consent was enough and that a later declaration could correct any problem.
Judge Cathy Seibel granted Hailemariam’s motion to remand and ordered the case returned to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The court ruled that the email between the defendants did not establish the City’s independent consent and that the later declaration came too late. The court did not decide the underlying injury claim.
The detailed version
- Hailemariam v. Amtrak · No. 7:22-cv-01503
- Cathy Seibel
- May 19, 2022
Background
Anthony Hailemariam filed a state-court lawsuit against National Passenger Railroad Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, and the City of New Rochelle. He sought damages for injuries from a May 17, 2021 fall that he alleged resulted from a defective condition on property controlled by the defendants.
Amtrak removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on federal-question jurisdiction and the federal statute governing federally created corporations with majority U.S. ownership. Amtrak’s notice said that the City consented to removal and attached an email between the defendants showing that consent. Hailemariam moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court.
Legal standard
When multiple defendants remove a case under the general removal statute, all properly served defendants must join in or consent to removal. This requirement is called the rule of unanimity. In the Second Circuit, consent must be independently and unambiguously expressed in writing to the court within the 30-day removal period. Federal courts also strictly construe removal rules and resolve doubts in favor of returning a case to state court.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the email between Amtrak’s and the City’s counsel was not enough because it was not directed to the court. The court found the reasoning of prior decisions, including a decision involving nearly identical circumstances, persuasive. Those decisions held that a removing defendant’s representation that another defendant consents does not satisfy the rule of unanimity unless the other defendant signs the removal notice or separately provides timely written consent to the court.
Amtrak argued that the email was sufficient under decisions from other federal appellate courts and that the defect was merely technical. The court declined to follow those nonbinding decisions because they were inconsistent with the Second Circuit’s strict approach to removal.
Amtrak also argued that the City’s later declaration, filed with Amtrak’s opposition to the remand motion, cured the problem. The court rejected that argument. It determined that the 30-day period ran from Amtrak’s service on February 9, 2022, through March 11, 2022, and that the City had not provided sufficient independent consent to the court during that period. Under Second Circuit precedent, late consent could not cure the failure.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Hailemariam’s motion to remand. It ordered the case remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, directed the Clerk to correct the caption to use National Passenger Railroad Corporation rather than the erroneous name stated in the complaint, and terminated the pending motion. The order addressed the removal procedure, not whether Hailemariam would prevail on his injury claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.