Maranino v. Cabrini of Westchester
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-04816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Maranino v. Cabrini of Westchester, Judge Seibel stayed execution of the remand order for 30 days so defendants could appeal.
The stay temporarily prevented execution of the order returning the case to New York state court, giving Defendants time to file an appeal. The remand order itself remained in effect, and the Clerk was directed to execute it after January 14, 2023.
What happened
In Maranino v. Cabrini of Westchester, the court had ordered the case sent back to New York state court. The defendants asked for a 30-day stay so they could appeal that decision.
The court ruled that it had authority to issue the stay because the defendants had removed the case under a federal-officer removal law, making the remand order appealable. Although the defendants had not shown that they were likely to win the appeal, denying a short stay would have prevented them from using their statutory right to appeal.
Judge Cathy Seibel vacated the Clerk’s execution of the remand order, but not the remand order itself, and stayed the matter until January 14, 2023. After the 30-day stay expired, the Clerk was directed to execute the remand order.
The detailed version
- Maranino v. Cabrini of Westchester · No. 7:22-cv-04816
- Cathy Seibel
- Dec. 29, 2022
Background
Defendants removed this case to federal court under federal removal statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1442. On December 15, 2022, the court ordered that the case be remanded, or returned, to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The defendants then asked for an automatic 30-day stay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), limited to giving them time to appeal the remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that mailing the remand order to the state court had eliminated the federal court’s authority to issue the requested limited stay. The court explained that the remand order was appealable because the case had been removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. It therefore had jurisdiction to consider the stay request.
The court explained that Rule 62(a) generally provides an automatic 30-day stay of execution of a judgment, unless the court orders otherwise. Because an order from which an appeal lies qualifies as a judgment under the federal rules, the court determined that granting a stay in these circumstances was within its discretion. The court distinguished the requested short stay, which was only to allow defendants to file a notice of appeal, from an open-ended stay lasting through the appeal. Defendants had not requested the latter.
Although Defendants had not shown that they were likely to succeed on appeal, the court concluded that immediately executing the remand order would deny them their statutory right to appeal. The limited duration of the stay and its narrow purpose also meant that it would not significantly prejudice Plaintiff.
Disposition
The court vacated the Clerk’s December 15, 2022 execution of the remand order, but did not vacate the remand order itself. It stayed the matter until January 14, 2023 under Rule 62(a) so Defendants could file a notice of appeal. After the 30-day stay expired, the Clerk was directed to execute the remand order.
This was a procedural ruling about the timing and execution of the remand order. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.