Papa v. Computacenter United States Inc.
1:25-cv-03788
S.D.N.Y.Jul 24, 2025Background
- Plaintiff James Papa worked for Computacenter United States (CC), managing a team at Deutsche Bank (DB) headquarters and reported to DB executive Marc Senatore.
- Papa reported a security breach where a non-authorized individual was allowed into sensitive DB technology rooms; this was in violation of DB security protocols.
- After submitting a report on the breach, Papa was suspended and then terminated from CC, allegedly at the direction of DB and Senatore, following his whistleblowing.
- Papa filed suit in New York state court against CC, DB entities, and Senatore, asserting whistleblower retaliation, tortious interference, negligence, and conspiracy claims; crucially, both Papa and Senatore are New Jersey residents.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction; Papa moved to remand, arguing Senatore's presence destroyed diversity.
- The court's decision centered on whether Senatore was fraudulently joined to defeat federal jurisdiction and whether at least one state law claim against him could survive dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Senatore's presence defeat diversity? | Both Papa and Senatore are NJ residents. | Senatore was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. | Yes; diversity is destroyed by Senatore's presence. |
| Is there a valid claim against Senatore? | Sufficient facts alleged for whistleblower claim under NYLL § 740. | No valid claim; facts don't support employer status or whistleblower retaliation. | Papa plausibly alleges a whistleblower claim under NYLL. |
| Was removal procedurally proper? | Removal omitted Senatore from notice in state court; improper. | Omission was a scrivener’s error. | Not essential; main decision based on diversity. |
| Should costs/attorneys’ fees be awarded? | Fees should be awarded because removal was improper. | Removal had an objectively reasonable basis. | No fees or costs awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2006) (removing party bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
- Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharms., Inc., 943 F.3d 613 (2d Cir. 2019) (removal statute construed narrowly, resolving doubts against removability)
- Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for finding fraudulent joinder)
- Carver v. State, 26 N.Y.3d 272 (N.Y. 2015) (economic reality test for employer status under New York law)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (standard for awarding attorneys’ fees upon remand)