Corbett v. Firstline Security, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 3d 67

Plaintiffs Mary Jean and Bartholomew Corbett sued multiple defendants after a June 20, 2007 home invasion, alleging a faulty security system caused their injuries.
Honeywell removed the action to federal court on December 19, 2008 based on diversity jurisdiction; several defendants were later dismissed or stipulated out.
A related state-court action on behalf of the Corbetts’ minor daughter was filed in November 2010.
Firstline Security, Inc. and Dan Brandt moved to remand the federal case to state court on December 9, 2013, arguing consolidation would promote judicial economy and avoid duplicative litigation.
Plaintiffs conditionally consented to remand only if it would not impair their ability to appeal the court’s prior grant of summary judgment to ADT.
The federal court denied the remand motion as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed roughly five years after removal and did not assert lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of remand motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)	Move to remand is acceptable if it promotes judicial economy and consolidation with related state action	Motion is untimely — filed more than 30 days after removal and does not assert lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Denied: motion untimely and not based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Adequacy of judicial-economy argument to justify remand	Consolidation with state action avoids duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings	Judicial economy is not a statutory basis to remand after the 30-day window; motion filed years after related state suit	Rejected: judicial-economy alone insufficient and untimely given long delay
Effect on plaintiffs’ appellate rights concerning prior summary-judgment ruling	Plaintiffs sought remand only if appellate rights preserved	Defendants did not contest that condition but focused on consolidation benefits	Court addressed preservation concern but still denied remand for procedural reasons
Disposition of nonappearing defendants (Tyco entities)	Plaintiffs hadn’t sought clerk’s entry of default	Defendants pointed out inactivity of Tyco defendants	Court ordered plaintiffs to seek defaults within 20 days or claims against Tyco parties will be dismissed under Rule 41

Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (section 1447(c) permits remand for procedural defects within 30 days or for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time)
Advantage Title Agency, Inc. v. Rosen, 297 F. Supp. 2d 536 (E.D.N.Y.) (untimely remand motions denied where removal jurisdiction exists and plaintiffs delay)