Lechky v. Nayar
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-01355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Lechky v. Nayar, Judge Ramos sent the case back to state court but denied Lechky’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees.
The order returned Lechky’s case against Nayar and the OYA Solar defendants to New York state court. Lechky did not receive the requested costs or attorneys’ fees.
What happened
Scott Lechky sued Manish Nayar and OYA Solar entities in New York state court over alleged wrongful discharge, retaliation, contract violations, fraud, and conversion. The defendants moved the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. Lechky asked the federal court to return the case to state court and to award him costs and expenses from the removal.
The parties agreed that remand was appropriate because all parties were Canadian citizens. The court separately considered whether the defendants should pay Lechky’s costs and attorneys’ fees. It found that the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal because Lechky’s complaint said he was a New York resident but did not state his citizenship, and the defendants promptly agreed that the case should be remanded.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the motion to remand and denied the request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The clerk was directed to return the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
The detailed version
- Lechky v. Nayar · No. 1:23-cv-01355
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 6, 2023
Background
Scott Lechky brought the action against Manish Nayar, OYA Solar NY, L.P., OYA Solar US GP Inc., Manish Nayar Holdings Inc., OYA Solar CDG LLC, OYA Solar Corp., and OYA Doe Defendants 1–25. He originally filed the case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. His claims included wrongful discharge and retaliation under New York Labor Law § 740, breach of contract, quasi-contract and unjust-enrichment theories, quantum meruit, fraudulent inducement, and conversion. The complaint sought $14 million on the contract claim and $1 million in punitive damages.
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally allows certain disputes involving citizens of different states or countries to be heard in federal court. Lechky moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court, arguing that there was not complete diversity because he and the defendants were Canadian citizens. The defendants agreed that remand was appropriate but opposed Lechky’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a court may award costs and actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by removal. The court explained that fees generally should not be awarded when the removing party had an objectively reasonable basis for removal. The standard does not require a finding of bad faith, but the absence of bad faith may be considered.
The court found that the defendants had at least a colorable, or legally plausible, basis for removal. Lechky’s complaint described him as a New York resident but did not state his citizenship. Based on the complaint, the defendants could reasonably have inferred that he was a U.S. citizen domiciled in New York. The court also considered that the defendants immediately agreed that remand was appropriate, which indicated a lack of bad faith.
Disposition
The court granted Lechky’s motion to remand the action to state court. It denied his request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.