Francis v. Dechamplain

Background

Alethia Francis brought this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. Defendants Kevin Dechamplain and Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. attempted to remove the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On January 16, 2023, defendants filed a civil cover sheet, a document titled “Notice of Filing” that was docketed using the filing event “Notice of Removal,” and a corporate disclosure statement. The filing did not include the actual notice of removal. The Clerk’s deficiency notice identified the problem as the wrong PDF file being attached to the docket entry and warned that the deficiency had to be corrected within five days or the case could be administratively closed.

Defendants did not re-file a correct notice of removal within that period. The federal case was administratively closed on January 24, 2023. Defendants filed an actual notice of removal on February 1, 2023—40 days after the date on which it could first be determined that the case was removable. The opinion also states that defendants did not file a copy of the notice of removal in the state court, and that the matter appeared to be continuing there.

Arguments and Analysis

The Court ordered defendants to show cause why the action should not be remanded because of a defect in the removal procedure. Defendants relied on Total Energy Corp. v. Stolt, arguing that their notice should be treated as timely. In that case, the defendant had timely submitted the notice of removal but failed to include a proper civil cover sheet. The court there treated the problem as a violation of a local rule that could be excused.

Judge Halpern distinguished that situation from this case. Here, the problem was not a local-rule violation or minor clerical error; defendants failed to file the notice of removal itself within the statutory period. The Court also found the circumstances similar to another case in which a notice filed after the 30-day period was held untimely.

Defendants asked the Court to treat the notice as constructively filed within the statutory period and to disregard the filing deficiencies. The Court concluded that it lacked authority to enlarge the statutory filing deadline and that defendants offered no grounds for treating the notice as timely.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester because the notice of removal was filed after the statutory deadline. The Clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to the state court and close the federal action. All pending matters were terminated.