Cuccia v. HF Management Services, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-02091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cuccia v. HF Management Services, Judge Cronan ordered HF Management Services to respond by April 30 to Cuccia’s remand motion.
Heather Cuccia, HF Management Services LLC, and Genesis Bayuelo-Perri; the order set a response deadline for HF Management Services and did not resolve whether the case would remain in federal court.
What happened
In Cuccia v. HF Management Services, Heather Cuccia asked the federal court to send her employment-discrimination case back to New York state court. She argued that the defendants filed their notice of removal too late.
Cuccia said Genesis Bayuelo-Perri was served on November 16, 2023, and HF Management Services was served through New York’s Secretary of State on December 1, 2023. The defendants removed the case to federal court on March 20, 2024. Cuccia also asked the court, at minimum, to investigate HF’s claim that it did not receive the pleadings until March 13, 2024.
The court did not decide the remand motion in this order. Judge John P. Cronan ordered HF Management Services to respond by April 30, 2024.
The detailed version
- Cuccia v. HF Management Services, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02091
- John Cronan
- Apr. 23, 2024
Background
Heather Cuccia filed an employment-discrimination action in New York State Supreme Court. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 20, 2024. Cuccia then filed a letter motion asking the federal court to remand, or return, the case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Cuccia’s position
Cuccia argued that the notice of removal was untimely under the federal removal statute. She stated that Genesis Bayuelo-Perri was served on November 16, 2023, and that HF Management Services LLC was served through the New York Secretary of State on December 1, 2023. Cuccia maintained that HF’s notice of removal was filed more than three months later.
Cuccia acknowledged that courts in the federal district generally calculate the removal period from the defendant’s receipt of the initial pleading, rather than from the statutory agent’s receipt. She argued, however, that HF’s claim that it never received the pleadings was unsupported and unreasonable because the pleadings had allegedly been mailed multiple times to HF’s registered address. She alternatively asked the court to find that HF received notice by mid-December 2023 or to order an inquiry into HF’s claimed nonreceipt.
Order
The April 23 order did not grant or deny the motion to remand and did not decide whether removal was timely. It ordered: “HF Management Services shall respond by April 30, 2024.” Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.
Disposition
The order sets a response deadline and leaves the remand motion unresolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.