People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James v. Doyle
1:24-cv-06045
S.D.N.Y.Jul 7, 2025Background
- The American Irish Historical Society defaulted on a mortgage and secured a $3 million loan from James Doyle, a member of its board, who did not disclose his involvement as the lender.
- The Historical Society used its Fifth Avenue townhouse as collateral in the loan with Doyle, which was not properly approved as a related-party transaction under New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.
- After the Historical Society defaulted on Doyle's loan and decided to sell its townhouse, the New York Attorney General, prompted by community concern and a petition, investigated the transaction.
- A settlement between the Attorney General and the Historical Society included governance reforms and Doyle's agreement to temporarily forebear on the mortgage; he later sued to foreclose on the property.
- The Attorney General intervened in Doyle’s foreclosure action, seeking to void the loan and mortgage for violations of not-for-profit law; Doyle then attempted to remove the complaint-in-intervention to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Doyle a "defendant" under § 1441(a) with a right to remove? | No, Doyle is the original plaintiff. | Yes, he's named as a defendant in intervention. | Doyle is not a "defendant" for removal purposes. |
| Can only a single claim/intervention be removed to federal court? | No, only entire actions are removable. | The intervention is a separate, removable claim. | Individual claims cannot be removed; only whole actions. |
| Is there diversity jurisdiction when the State intervenes as party? | Attorney General acts for the State; no diversity. | There is diversity between Doyle and NY. | No diversity: NY State is real party in interest, not citizen. |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435 (removal under § 1441(a) is available only to original defendants)
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208 (removal statute must be strictly construed, any doubt resolved against removal)
- Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642 (removal right is only for defendants)
- Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347 (party removing on diversity bears burden to prove requirements)