Osmani v. Cyclical Markets, LLC
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-07233
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Osmani v. Cyclical Markets, Judge Cronan ordered a defendant to attach the state-court complaint to its removal notice.
Defendant Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union was required to amend its notice of removal and attach the state-court complaint.
What happened
Osmani v. Cyclical Markets, LLC concerns a defendant’s effort to move a New York state-court case to federal court. The defendant said it had attached the required state-court papers to its removal notice.
The notice referred to a complaint that had been served on the defendant, but the defendant did not attach that complaint. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the defendant to amend its removal notice by August 30, 2022, with the complaint attached.
The detailed version
- Osmani v. Cyclical Markets, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-07233
- Cathy Seibel
- Aug. 26, 2022
Background
Defendant Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union filed a notice of removal on August 25, 2022. The notice sought to move the case from the Supreme Court of New York, County of Sullivan, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendant stated that it had attached all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendants, as required by federal removal law.
The notice referred to a complaint filed in the state-court case and stated that the complaint had been served on the defendant on July 25, 2022. The defendant did not attach the complaint to its notice of removal.
Court’s Order
Judge John P. Cronan ordered Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union to amend its notice of removal by August 30, 2022, and attach the referenced complaint. The court cited an earlier Southern District of New York decision stating that failing to attach the correct complaint to a removal notice is not a fatal defect.
The opinion addresses only the missing attachment and does not decide the underlying claims or the ultimate validity of removal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.