Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department

Background

Rahul Dev Manchanda, a New York-licensed attorney appearing without a lawyer, filed a notice seeking to remove to federal court a proceeding involving the Attorney Grievance Committee’s effort to suspend him from practicing law in New York. The notice referred to a proceeding with docket number 2021,1336 and also referenced state-court case numbers M-2023-00499 and M-2023-01016. The court said it was unclear which civil action Manchanda intended to remove and why he listed numerous individuals as respondents.

According to the notice, the Grievance Committee began an investigation after Manchanda filed three complaints containing what it described as racist and anti-Semitic language. The notice also stated that the Grievance Committee later moved to immediately suspend Manchanda based on alleged professional misconduct threatening the public interest. Manchanda argued that the federal court had federal-question jurisdiction because the matter involved the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that federal civil-rights statutes supported jurisdiction. He also argued that removal was timely because he filed the notice within 30 days after receiving a notice of entry in April 2023.

Court’s Analysis

Federal law allows a defendant in a state-court civil action to remove the matter only when a federal district court could have exercised original jurisdiction over it. The court concluded that the proceeding Manchanda identified was a state attorney-discipline proceeding based on state law. Such a proceeding could not originally have been filed in federal court and therefore was not removable.

The court also rejected federal-question jurisdiction. Under the well-pleaded-complaint rule, federal jurisdiction generally must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded claim. The court determined that Manchanda’s constitutional arguments were affirmative defenses to the Grievance Committee’s efforts, not claims appearing on the face of the state proceeding. The court further stated that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Manchanda and at least some respondents were citizens of New York.

The court separately concluded that the notice of removal appeared untimely. A notice of removal generally must be filed within 30 days after the defendant receives a qualifying pleading, motion, or other paper. The notice showed that the state proceedings had been pending since at least 2021, that Manchanda had answered the Grievance Committee’s accusations in January 2022, and that he had filed motions in the state court in February 2023. The court found that Manchanda alleged no facts showing that he was unaware of grounds for removal before receiving the April 2023 notice of entry.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon held that removal was improper and remanded the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department. The clerk was directed to send that court a copy of the order and close the federal action. All pending matters were terminated.