Camarda v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-00192
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Camarda v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Furman remanded the case because a defendant had not consented to removal.
Vincent Camarda, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (d/b/a Amtrak), and United Rental, Inc.; the case was returned to New York state court and closed on the federal docket.
What happened
Camarda v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation began in New York state court and was removed to federal court by Amtrak. The case also named United Rental, Inc. as a defendant.
Federal removal generally requires all defendants to join or consent within the required time. Amtrak acknowledged that it had not obtained United Rental’s consent before filing its removal notice, and United Rental later said it did not consent and filed an answer in state court.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the case remanded to the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, and directed the federal clerk to close the federal case. The court did not decide whether removal would otherwise have been proper.
The detailed version
- Camarda v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-00192
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, removed Vincent Camarda’s action from the Supreme Court of New York. The opinion states that the action was removed from Bronx County. United Rental, Inc. was also named as a defendant.
Removal and Consent
The court explained that removal—the transfer of a case from state court to federal court—requires all defendants to join in or consent to the removal. Amtrak’s notice of removal did not allege that United Rental had timely joined or consented. The court therefore ordered Amtrak to explain why the case should not be sent back to state court.
Amtrak responded that it had believed in good faith that United Rental would consent, but acknowledged that it had not actually obtained United Rental’s consent before filing the removal notice. United Rental later communicated that it opposed removal and filed its answer in state court. Amtrak conceded that removal was improper and stipulated to remand.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the case be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, and directed the Clerk of Court to immediately remand the case and close the federal docket. The court said it did not need to decide whether removal would otherwise have been proper. It further stated that remand would have been required even if United Rental had not opposed removal, because the law requires notice of a defendant’s consent within thirty days of removal.
The opinion refers to the action as having been removed from Bronx County but directs remand to the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York. The text does not explain that county difference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.