Newco Family, LLC v. Haider

Background

Newco Family LLC filed a nonpayment eviction case in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, against Shabab Haider and Cirena Carillo-Haider. The landlord alleged that they were tenants in a Manhattan building, had failed to pay monthly rent of $4,000, and owed $56,000. Haider alone filed a notice of removal seeking to transfer the state-court action to the Southern District of New York. He was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Haider asserted that federal-question jurisdiction existed because he alleged racist and discriminatory conduct, deprivation of civil rights, and violations of the Fair Housing Act. He also invoked supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a state-court defendant may remove a case only when the federal district court has original jurisdiction. The court identified three problems with Haider’s removal.

First, the court could not determine whether the notice was timely. Removal generally must occur within 30 days after service of a pleading or other paper showing that the case is removable. Haider did not state when he was served with the nonpayment petition or when removability could first have been determined.

Second, the removal lacked the required consent of all properly joined and served defendants. Haider did not show that Cirena Carillo-Haider consented to removal, either by signing the notice or by providing timely, unambiguous written consent.

Third, the court concluded that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction generally must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. The state-court petition presented a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent and did not assert a federal cause of action. Haider’s federal-law defenses and counterclaims, including his Fair Housing Act allegations, could not serve as the basis for removing the case. The court also noted that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because the landlord and Haider were residents of New York.

Disposition

The court concluded that removal was improper and remanded the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York. The clerk was directed to send the order to that court and close the federal action, and all pending matters in federal court were terminated. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Haider permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.