Sutton v. TCI Acquisition Company, Inc.
1:24-cv-09846
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jesse Sutton filed state law employment claims against Defendant TCI Acquisition Company, Inc. ("TCI") in New York Supreme Court.
- TCI, a Florida corporation, removed the case to federal court citing diversity jurisdiction (parties diverse, amount in controversy over $75,000).
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing TCI’s removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
- TCI was served with a Summons with Notice but the summons did not list plaintiff’s address; the Complaint stating Sutton's residence was filed later via NYSCEF.
- TCI removed the case 81 days after being served the Summons but only 38 days after the Complaint, contending it only had formal notice when the Complaint was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What document triggered removal clock? | Summons was initial pleading and started 30-day clock | Summons was insufficient (no plaintiff address); clock started only with Complaint | Summons was not sufficient—Complaint was initial pleading |
| Was Complaint properly served via NYSCEF? | Yes—service via NYSCEF was effective, regardless of email issues | No—service was ineffective due to inactive email, so removal clock never started | Service via NYSCEF was proper and effective; defendant responsible for monitoring |
| Was TCI’s removal timely? | No—removal was outside 30 days of service | Yes—removal within 3 days of alleged actual receipt | Removal was untimely—clock started on NYSCEF filing date |
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees/costs | N/A | Defendant requested fees/costs | Denied; statute only allows plaintiff to recover |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (summons with notice can be initial pleading only if it includes all necessary facts for removal)
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2013) (removal statutes are construed narrowly, doubts against removability)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (removal clock triggered only upon formal service of initial pleading)
- Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Worldcom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004) (defendant bears burden to show propriety of removal)
- Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2010) (removal clock starts only with explicit notice of amount in controversy)