Harris v. Burlington Coat Factory
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-04120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Harris v. Burlington Coat Factory, Judge Broderick remanded the case because a properly served defendant did not timely consent to removal.
Jimmy Harris, Burlington Coat Factory, and Urban Edge Properties. The action returns to the New York Supreme Court, and the federal case is closed.
What happened
Jimmy Harris sued Burlington Coat Factory and Urban Edge Properties in New York Supreme Court. Burlington Coat Factory moved the case to federal court, but Harris objected. Urban Edge Properties had been served and participated in the state case, including by filing a stipulation and an answer.
Federal law generally requires all properly served defendants to agree to removal within 30 days. The court found that Urban Edge Properties did not consent until almost two months after receiving the summons. The court also rejected the argument that a different entity, Urban Edge Properties II, was the relevant defendant, finding that the complaint appeared to have mislabeled the intended entity by leaving out “LP.”
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the case remanded to New York Supreme Court and directed the federal court clerk to close the case. The ruling addressed the propriety of removal and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Burlington Coat Factory · No. 1:22-cv-04120
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
Jimmy Harris filed the action against Burlington Coat Factory and Urban Edge Properties in New York Supreme Court. Burlington Coat Factory removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Harris objected and asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
The dispute concerned the rule of unanimity, a removal requirement under which all defendants who were properly joined and served must join in or consent to removal within the statutory 30-day period. Urban Edge Properties was served on April 22, 2022. It participated in the state case by filing a joint stipulation with Harris and later filing an answer. The answer did not raise inadequate service as a defense, so the court treated Urban Edge Properties as properly served.
Court’s Analysis
Burlington Coat Factory filed the notice of removal on May 19, 2022. Urban Edge Properties did not consent to removal until June 16, 2022, nearly two months after service. The court held that this untimely consent failed to satisfy the rule of unanimity, making the removal improper.
Burlington Coat Factory and a different entity identified as Urban Edge Properties II argued that Urban Edge Properties was not the named defendant and that the served entity was therefore irrelevant to removal. The court rejected that argument. Based on the complaint’s description of the intended defendant, the service address, and Urban Edge Properties’ participation in the state action, the court found that Urban Edge Properties was the entity described, served, and appearing in the case. The court characterized the naming issue as a mislabeling of the correct defendant by omitting “LP.” It also stated that any doubts about which entity Harris intended to sue should be resolved in favor of remand.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that the action be remanded to the New York Supreme Court and directed the Clerk to close the federal case. The opinion did not decide the merits of Harris’s underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court decided that removal was improper and returned the case to state court without reaching the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.