New Rochelle CP v. Anthony
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In New Rochelle CP v. Anthony, Judge Schofield remanded the case because the defendant’s removal notice had multiple legal defects.
The ruling returned the matter involving New Rochelle CP and Keith Anthony to state court and closed the federal case; it did not decide the underlying state-court dispute.
What happened
New Rochelle CP v. Anthony involved Keith Anthony’s attempt to move a state-court case to federal court. Anthony, who was representing himself, filed a notice of removal on April 2, 2024.
The notice did not include the state-court papers required by law. It also did not explain whether the removal was timely or establish a basis for federal jurisdiction, such as a federal claim by New Rochelle CP or the parties’ citizenship. The notice relied on federal-law counterclaims, but counterclaims cannot generally provide a basis for removing a case to federal court.
The court remanded the matter to state court because the notice of removal was procedurally and substantively defective, and directed the clerk to send the order to the state court and close the federal case. Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order.
The detailed version
- New Rochelle CP v. Anthony · No. 1:24-cv-02593
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 17, 2024
Background
Keith Anthony, representing himself, filed a notice of removal on April 2, 2024, seeking to move the state-court matter involving New Rochelle CP to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Problems with the Removal Notice
The court explained that federal removal law requires a notice of removal to include a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, along with copies of the process, pleadings, and orders served in the state action. Anthony’s notice did not include any of those state-court materials.
The notice also did not state that removal was timely or provide facts allowing the court to determine whether the 30-day removal deadline had been met. In addition, it did not establish the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It identified neither a federal claim by New Rochelle CP nor the citizenship of the parties at the beginning of the action and when removal was filed.
The court further stated that Anthony’s asserted basis for removal and for federal jurisdiction consisted of federal-law counterclaims. Under the authorities cited by the court, a counterclaim cannot establish the federal jurisdiction needed to remove a civil action.
Ruling
The court ordered that the matter be remanded to state court because the notice of removal was "procedurally and substantively defective." The court directed the clerk to mail a certified copy of the opinion and order to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and to close the federal case. Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.