Murillo-Roman v. The Pension Boards-United Church of Christ, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-08365
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Murillo-Roman v. Pension Boards, Judge Rochon ordered proof of service to determine whether removal had defendants’ required consent.
Plaintiff Dilka Murillo-Roman was required to submit an affidavit and proof of service concerning defendants John Lizney and Camilia Huggins; the order also concerned whether Defendant The Pension Boards-United Church of Christ, Inc.’s removal had the required consent.
What happened
Murillo-Roman v. The Pension Boards-United Church of Christ, Inc. reached federal court after Pension Boards removed it from New York state court. The record did not show whether the other defendants, John Lizney and Camilia Huggins, had been served or agreed to removal.
The court explained that removal generally requires all properly served defendants to consent. It ordered Plaintiff Dilka Murillo-Roman to file an affidavit by October 13, 2022, stating whether she had properly served Lizney and Huggins and attaching proof of service.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued this procedural order without deciding whether service occurred, whether removal was valid, or the merits of the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Murillo-Roman v. The Pension Boards-United Church of Christ, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08365
- Rochon
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
The action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on September 30, 2022. Defendant The Pension Boards-United Church of Christ, Inc. filed the removal. The opinion identifies John Lizney and Camilia Huggins as additional defendants.
Legal Standard
The court stated that a civil action generally cannot be removed unless all defendants who were properly joined and served consent to removal. Defendants who do not join the removal must independently express their consent. The court also explained that all properly joined and served defendants must consent within the applicable thirty-day removal period. An exception may apply when a nonjoining defendant had not been served when the removal notice was filed.
Court’s Action
The court found no current indication in the record that Lizney and Huggins joined in or consented to removal. Because the record did not establish whether they had been served, the court ordered Plaintiff Dilka Murillo-Roman, no later than October 13, 2022, to file an affidavit stating whether she had properly served them and attaching proof of service.
The order did not decide whether Lizney and Huggins were served, whether their consent was required, whether removal was ultimately valid, or the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.