Mota v. Armellini Express Lines
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-02807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Mota v. Armellini, Judge Torres denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and request for attorneys’ fees after finding removal timely and proper.
The ruling affected Mariana Mota and Hector J. Mota, who sought to return their negligence lawsuit to state court, and Armellini Express Lines and Daniel W. Hue, who removed the case to federal court. The court denied remand and denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
What happened
Mota v. Armellini Express Lines concerns a personal-injury lawsuit arising from a March 19, 2021 vehicle collision in the Bronx. Mariana Mota and Hector J. Mota sued Armellini Express Lines and Daniel W. Hue, alleging negligence and seeking damages.
The defendants moved the case from New York state court to federal court, asserting that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake. The plaintiffs argued that the removal was too late and requested attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the removal was timely because the complaint did not state a damages amount; the 30-day deadline began when the plaintiffs later stated that they sought $2 million. Judge Torres also found the removal notice procedurally adequate, denied the motion to remand, and denied the request for attorneys’ fees.
The detailed version
- Mota v. Armellini Express Lines · No. 1:22-cv-02807
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
Mariana Mota and Hector J. Mota sued Armellini Express Lines and Daniel W. Hue in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. They alleged that on March 19, 2021, Hue’s vehicle collided with their vehicle in the Bronx and that the collision resulted from the defendants’ negligence, carelessness, or recklessness. The complaint did not state the amount of damages sought.
Hue was operating a vehicle owned by Armellini in the course of his employment. The vehicle was registered in Florida. The plaintiffs later responded to the defendants’ request for a supplemental damages demand by stating that they sought $2,000,000.
Removal and Motion to Remand
The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York on April 5, 2022. They asserted federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship: they said the plaintiffs were New York residents, the defendants were Florida residents, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
The plaintiffs moved to send the case back to state court, arguing that the defendants filed the notice of removal too late. They also requested attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), arguing that the removal was improper. The defendants argued that the remand motion itself was untimely, but the court addressed the substance of the motion.
Court’s Analysis
Federal law generally gives a defendant 30 days after receiving the initial pleading to remove a case. If the initial pleading does not make the case removable, the 30-day period begins when the defendant receives a later pleading or other paper showing that the case is removable. For a New York personal-injury complaint, state law prohibits stating the amount of damages in the complaint.
Judge Torres concluded that the removal was timely. Because the complaint did not specify damages, receiving the complaint did not start the removal deadline. The deadline began on March 11, 2022, when the plaintiffs stated in response to the defendants’ damages demand that they sought $2,000,000. The defendants filed their notice on April 5, 2022, within 30 days after receiving that information.
The court also found the notice procedurally adequate. The notice explained that the complaint was a personal-injury action, that the complaint did not state damages, that the plaintiffs later supplied a damages amount, and that the parties were allegedly citizens of different states with more than $75,000 in controversy. The defendants also attached the state-court complaint, as required.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. It also denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), because the court found that removal was proper. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at docket entries 9 and 16.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.