Abuzaid v. Almayouf

Background

Rawan Abdullah Abuzaid, known as “Model Roz,” sued Danah Almayouf in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, in 2019. The complaint asserted state-law claims for defamation by libel and slander and tortious interference with economic advantage. Abuzaid alleged that Almayouf made false social-media statements describing Model Roz as a prostitute paid by the government of Saudi Arabia.

The state court granted Abuzaid partial summary judgment on liability for the defamation claim, leaving damages to be determined at trial, and allowed Abuzaid’s other claims to continue. Almayouf later appealed, ended her representation by counsel, and filed a motion seeking renewal or reconsideration in state court. The federal court stated that the state case appeared to remain ongoing, at least as to damages.

Almayouf, acting without a lawyer, filed a notice of removal in September 2023. She invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and argued that the case involved “transnational repression” because Abuzaid was suing her as a Saudi activist abroad. She also argued that the state judge lacked experience with or knowledge of those issues. Abuzaid moved to send the case back to state court and requested attorney fees for bringing that motion.

Court’s Analysis

Untimely removal. Federal law generally requires a defendant to file a notice of removal within 30 days after receiving the initial pleading or another document showing that the case is removable. Almayouf was served in October 2019 but did not remove the case until September 2023. She did not argue that the original complaint was not removable or identify a later document that started a new 30-day period. The court therefore found the removal untimely.

No federal-question jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction generally depends on a federal issue appearing on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Abuzaid’s complaint asserted state-law claims and did not present a federal question. The court explained that a federal defense, including Almayouf’s argument about transnational repression, does not provide a basis for removing a state-court case to federal court.

No demonstrated diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires the necessary citizenship differences between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Almayouf merely stated that the parties were from different states and did not provide sufficient facts about their citizenship or domiciles. The complaint described Abuzaid as a citizen of Saudi Arabia residing in California and Almayouf as born in Saudi Arabia and residing in New York. The court explained that if both parties were Saudi citizens, the case would be a dispute between foreign citizens over which the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction. Alternatively, if Almayouf were a United States citizen, the forum-defendant rule would bar her from removing the case to federal court because she resided in New York, the state where the action was filed.

Attorney fees and fee-waiver request. Under federal law, a court may award fees caused by an improper removal when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis. The court declined to award Abuzaid attorney fees, citing the force of some of Abuzaid’s arguments but also Abuzaid’s status as a self-represented litigant and Almayouf’s request to proceed without prepaying fees. Because the court remanded the case, it did not address Almayouf’s request to proceed without prepaying fees.

Disposition

The court concluded that removal was improper because it was untimely and Almayouf failed to demonstrate subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Laura Taylor Swain remanded the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The court denied Abuzaid’s request for attorney fees, directed the federal clerk to send the order to the state court and close the federal action, and terminated all matters pending in federal court.