Hecht v. Brandt

Background

Julie Hecht sued Heidi Brandt and Jerry Wells in New York Supreme Court, New York County. She alleged tort claims including libel, fraud, aiding and abetting, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and violations of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The complaint sought $250,000 for each cause of action and $1 million in punitive damages.

Brandt and Wells removed the state-court case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain cases involving parties from different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. They removed the case on July 20, 2023, and answered the complaint on August 7, 2023.

Hecht moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). She argued that the removal was untimely because Brandt and Wells had enough information to determine that the case was removable by May 21, 2021. Hecht also requested attorney’s fees related to the removal.

Timeliness of Removal

Federal law generally requires a defendant to file a notice of removal within 30 days after receiving an initial pleading that provides enough information to determine that the case can be removed. The court noted that the parties did not dispute complete diversity or the amount-in-controversy requirement. The only issue before it was whether the removal was timely.

Judge Cott concluded that the initial summons with notice gave Brandt and Wells enough information to intelligently determine that the case was removable. The summons provided Hecht’s address, described the claims, and stated that she sought $250,000 for each claim plus $1 million in punitive damages. Brandt and Wells also knew their own citizenship, and they had received and reviewed the summons by no later than May 21, 2021, when they demanded a copy of the complaint and engaged in state-court motion practice.

The court ruled that the 30-day removal period therefore began on May 21, 2021. Because Brandt and Wells did not remove the case until July 2023, their removal was untimely. The court granted Hecht’s motion to remand.

Attorney’s Fees

The court separately considered Hecht’s request for attorney’s fees under § 1447(c). It explained that fees may be awarded when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal, but ordinarily should be denied when the party had a reasonable, colorable basis.

Although the removal was untimely, Judge Cott found that Brandt and Wells’s arguments were sufficiently reasonable to avoid a fee award. The court also noted that the record did not show that the removal was merely an attempt to abuse or harass Hecht or force her to incur unnecessary expenses. Their pro se status and their earlier efforts to challenge jurisdiction and service also supported declining to award fees. The court denied Hecht’s request for attorney’s fees.

Disposition

The court ordered that the case be remanded to New York Supreme Court, New York County, and directed the clerk to close the federal case. The opinion addressed the timing and propriety of removal, not the merits of Hecht’s underlying tort claims.