The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity v. Barreto

Background

Mickey Barreto, representing himself, filed a notice seeking to remove to federal court an action pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The plaintiff, The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, alleged in the state proceeding that Barreto rented Room 2565 in the New Yorker Hotel for one night in June 2018, then refused to leave while claiming entitlement to a rent-stabilized lease. The plaintiff also alleged that Barreto did not pay hotel fees or rent and fraudulently filed a deed conveying the building to himself.

The state court had granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, declared the deed null and void, and declared the plaintiff the building’s true owner. Barreto later sought federal jurisdiction, asserting that removal was timely and that the federal court had both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the removal notice was untimely. Federal law generally requires a removal notice to be filed within 30 days after the defendant receives a pleading, motion, order, or other paper showing that the case is removable. Barreto argued that the 30-day period began when he received an April 15, 2022, state-court decision referring the matter to a special referee regarding possible criminal contempt. The court found that Barreto alleged no facts showing that this decision was the first time removability could be determined.

The court also concluded that it lacked a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case. For federal-question jurisdiction, the federal issue must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded claims. Barreto’s references to federal statutes and his asserted federal defenses did not create federal-question jurisdiction because a defendant’s defense is not part of the plaintiff’s complaint. The court found that the state proceeding involved state-law claims concerning contempt, the building, and the deed, and that Barreto had not pleaded facts establishing a federal-law claim.

The court rejected diversity jurisdiction as another basis for removal. Barreto alleged that the plaintiff was a foreign state and that he was a New York citizen. The court explained that a state-court action generally cannot be removed based on diversity jurisdiction when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed. Because Barreto was the defendant in the state action and was alleged to be a New York citizen, he could not remove the action to federal court on that basis.

Disposition

The court concluded that removal was improper and remanded the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to send that court a copy of the order and to close the federal action; all pending matters were terminated.

The court also discussed a prior removal attempt by Barreto involving another state-court action concerning his tenancy of the same hotel room. The court stated that Barreto was or should have been aware of federal removal procedures and warned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation would result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions without prior permission. The order uses “Plaintiff” in that warning, and the opinion does not explain the reference.