Braun v. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP
1:23-cv-07241
| E.D.N.Y | Oct 10, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Shlomo Braun sued Chartwell Law Offices, LLP in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 158686/2023).
- On September 28, 2023, Defendant Chartwell filed a notice removing the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, invoking 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
- New York County is within the Southern District of New York, not the Eastern District, so removal to EDNY was venue-improper under 28 U.S.C. § 112(b).
- The Court treated removal to the wrong federal district as a procedural defect (not a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
- The Court recognized its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and controlling precedent to remand sua sponte for procedural defects within 30 days of removal.
- Holding: the case was remanded to New York County Supreme Court; the Clerk was ordered to send a certified copy of the remand order and close the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper federal venue for removal | Braun contends removal was improper because the state action lies in New York County (SDNY) | Chartwell removed to EDNY under §§ 1441/1446, asserting federal removal jurisdiction | Removal to EDNY was improper; New York County is in SDNY, so venue was wrong and remand required |
| Effect of improper venue on subject-matter jurisdiction | Braun argues the procedural defect warrants remand | Chartwell implicitly relies on federal jurisdiction despite venue error | Venue error is procedural, not jurisdictional; it does not negate subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Authority to remand sua sponte for procedural defects | Braun seeks remand | Chartwell did not prevent sua sponte remand | Court may and did remand sua sponte under § 1447(c) within 30 days for the procedural defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (venue for removed actions lies in the federal district embracing the state court)
- Cassara v. Ralston, 832 F. Supp. 752 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (district court may remand for procedural defects)
- Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Public Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing district courts' authority to remand sua sponte for procedural defects)
- Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1993) (same)