Sutton v. TCI Acquisition Company, Inc.
1:24-cv-09846
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 28, 2025Background
- Jesse Sutton filed state law claims against TCI Acquisition Company, Inc. (“TCI”) in New York State Supreme Court, alleging issues related to his alleged employment at TCI.
- TCI is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business in Florida; Sutton resides in Kings County, New York.
- The case was removed by TCI to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
- Sutton moved to remand the case to state court, arguing the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
- Service of the initial Summons did not include Sutton’s address; the Complaint—served via e-filing—did.
- TCI's counsel argued late notice due to an inactive email address for NYSCEF, but the court found counsel responsible for monitoring e-filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Summons triggered removal | Summons triggered removal clock | Summons lacked plaintiff addr | Summons did not trigger removal clock |
| Whether Complaint was properly served | NYSCEF filing of Complaint = service | No actual notice, email issue | Filing on NYSCEF constituted effective service |
| Whether removal was timely | Removal filed 38+ days after service | Removal timely upon notice | Removal was untimely, not within 30 days of service |
| Defendant’s request for fees/costs | N/A | Seeks attorney’s fees/costs | Denied; statute authorizes fee award only for plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (Initial pleading must include facts—such as parties’ addresses—necessary for defendant to ascertain removability)
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2013) (Removal statutes are narrowly construed, with doubts resolved against removability)
- Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Worldcom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004) (Defendant has the burden of demonstrating removal is proper)
- Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2010) (Removal clock starts only when defendant is served with a paper clearly setting out damages sought)
- LaFarge Coppee v. Venezolana De Cementos, S.A.C.A., 31 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1994) (Remand is proper for any removal defect if a timely remand motion is made)