Baum v. Blum

Background

On December 30, 2021, Yoel Baum started an eviction holdover proceeding against Rachel Brown and Menachem Mendel Blum in New York state court. Blum removed the proceeding to federal court on April 27, 2022. He argued that he had a defense under the Fair Housing Act and that the eviction proceeding was related to Brown’s bankruptcy case.

Baum moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. Baum also asked the court to decide the motion quickly because he said a state-court appearance was scheduled for June 29, 2022. The court noted that Baum had waited about a month after removal to seek remand and had not promptly informed the court about the scheduled appearance.

Federal-law removal argument

The court explained that a defendant generally may remove a state-court case only when the plaintiff’s complaint itself establishes federal-question jurisdiction. A federal defense or counterclaim normally does not make a case removable.

The state-court eviction petition did not allege a violation of federal law. The court determined that the proceeding appeared to be entirely a matter of state law, and that Blum’s Fair Housing Act arguments and ownership arguments would, at most, be defenses or counterclaims. Those arguments did not create federal-question jurisdiction. The court also noted that it was unclear whether the removal was timely because Blum relied on an alleged statement by Baum, rather than clearly identifying an amended pleading, motion, order, or other litigation document that made the case removable.

Bankruptcy-related argument

The court separately considered Blum’s argument that the eviction proceeding was related to Brown’s bankruptcy case. Under the bankruptcy-remand statute, a court may return a related proceeding to state court on equitable grounds. The court found that the relevant factors favored remand: the bankruptcy court had lifted the automatic stay so the state eviction case could proceed; the premises were rented and had no effect on the bankruptcy estate; the appeal from the stay-lifting order had been dismissed; the eviction case was a simple state-law matter; no jury-trial right was affected; and removal had delayed and prejudiced Baum’s case.

Rulings

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to remand the case forthwith to the Justice Court for the Town of Monroe, County of Orange, State of New York, and to close the federal case.

Baum also requested attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court declined to award fees at that time. Although the grounds for removal came close to lacking an objectively reasonable basis, the court considered the defendants’ self-represented status. The court warned that any further attempt to remove the action on the grounds addressed in the order would likely result in an award of fees.

Additional note

The court stated that it appeared the defendants may have received help from an attorney in preparing their removal papers. It directed that, if they later appeared in federal court without lawyers, they would have to state whether they had received counsel’s assistance.