Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-03075
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Judge Rochon denied Tepley’s extension request and required her remand motion by May 22, 2024.
The ruling affected plaintiff Allison Tepley by denying additional time to file her remand motion and requiring her to file it by May 22, 2024; it also affected the defendants because the court applied the statutory remand deadline.
What happened
In Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Inc., plaintiff Allison Tepley asked for more time to file a motion asking the court to send the case back. The motion was originally due May 22, 2024, and she requested an extension until June 5, 2024.
The court explained that federal law generally requires a remand motion based on a defect other than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to be filed within 30 days after removal. The court said this deadline is mandatory and denied the request for an extension. It ordered Tepley to file the remand motion by May 22, 2024.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the order. The ruling addressed only the filing deadline and did not decide whether the case should actually be remanded.
The detailed version
- Tepley v. Gro Intelligence, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03075
- Rochon
- May 16, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Allison Tepley, through counsel, requested an extension of time to file a motion to remand. A motion to remand asks a federal court to send a case back after removal. Tepley’s motion was originally due May 22, 2024; she requested permission to file it by June 5, 2024. The request cited motion, deposition, and mediation scheduling and personal circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which requires a motion to remand based on a defect other than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to be filed within 30 days after the notice of removal. The court characterized that deadline as a mandatory claim-processing rule. Such a rule governs the parties’ required steps in litigation and, when properly invoked, must be enforced, although it is not jurisdictional.
The court stated that it was not at liberty to grant an extension without the defendants’ consent, unless the alleged defect involved a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion text is partially corrupted, so it does not clearly state additional details about the defendants’ position.
Disposition
The court denied the request for an extension. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Tepley to file her motion to remand by May 22, 2024. The order did not decide the merits of any eventual remand motion or whether the case should be returned to state court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.