North Sea Associates, Inc. v. Payton Lane NH, Inc.

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 30 Motion to Remand to State Court. For the foregoing reasons, North Sea's motion to remand is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to the New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and mark this matter closed. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/17/12. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------X
NORTH SEA ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-CV-0048(JS)(GRB)

-againstPAYTON LANE NH, INC.,
Defendant,
------------------------------------X
PAYTON LANE NH, INC.,
Third-Party
Plaintiff,
-againstPFC CORPORATION,
Third-Party
Defendant.
------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For North Sea:
Sanford Strenger, Esq.
Salamon, Gruber, Blaymore & Strenger, P.C.
97 Powerhouse Road, Suite 102
Roslyn Heights, NY 11577
For Payton:

Stuart S. Zisholtz, Esq.
Meng Cheng, Esq.
Zisholtz & Zisholtz
170 Old Country Road, Suite 300
Mineola, NY 11501

PFC Corp.:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending

before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff

North

Sea

Associates, LLC’s (“North Sea”) motion to remand this action to
the New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
30.)

(Docket Entry

Defendant Payton Lane NH (“Payton”) does not oppose the

motion

(Docket

Entry

31)

and

Third-Party

Defendant

Corporation (“PFC”) has yet to appear in this action.

PFC

For the

following reasons, North Sea’s motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
North

Sea

commenced

this

action

in

New

York

State

Supreme Court, Suffolk County, against Payton to recover damages
for

breach

of

contract,

misrepresentation,

and

conversion.

Payton then commenced a third-party action against PFC and the
United

States

Department

of

Housing

and

Urban

Development

(“HUD”) seeking a declaratory judgment that Payton: (1) has no
liability to HUD, PFC, or North Sea, and (2) has satisfied all
contractual obligations to North Sea, HUD, and PFC.

HUD removed

the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and
filed a motion to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint as against
it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On December 6,

2011, the Court granted HUD’s motion and dismissed all claims
asserted against HUD in the Third-Party Complaint.

On January

6, 2012, North Sea filed the instant letter motion to remand on

2

the ground that HUD’s dismissal divested the Court of subject
matter jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
I.

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
North Sea asserts that the case must be remanded back

to

state

court

because

“HUD

was

dismissed

as

a

third-party

defendant in the action and based upon that dismissal subject
matter jurisdiction of the Court no longer exists, since the
sole basis of jurisdiction was under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)”
(Docket Entry 30).
removed

pursuant

against

the

The Court disagrees.

to

federal

§

1442(a)(1),
agency

or

When an action is

dismissal

officer

on

of

the

which

claims
removal

jurisdiction was based does not deprive the federal court of
jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

See Galella v.

Onassis,

Falls

487

F.2d

986,

996

(2d

Cir.

1973);

Riverway

Realty, Inc. v. City of Niagara Falls, N.Y., 732 F.2d 38, 42 (2d
Cir. 1984).

Therefore, HUD’s dismissal in the instant case does

not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
II.

Discretion to Remand
Rather, “[w]hether the claim [is] to be remanded [is]

within the court’s discretion after consideration of judicial
economy and fairness to the litigants.”
996.

In

deciding

whether

to

remand,

Galella, 487 F.2d at
the

Court

should

also

consider “the policy of having federal courts avoid ‘needless
3

decisions

of

state

law,’”

Falls

Riverway,

732

F.2d

at

42

(quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.
Ct.

1130,

16

L.

Ed.

2d

218

(1966)),

and

“the

legitimate

interests and expectations of the parties in having a trial in
federal court,” id.
Analyzing these factors, the Court finds that remand
is appropriate here.

Although the case was removed to federal

court in January 2011, discovery did not commence until August
2011 and will remain open until January 31, 2012.

And aside

from HUD’s motion to dismiss, no dispositive motions have been
filed and the Court has not expended any significant time or
resources familiarizing itself with New York law as applied to
this case.

Furthermore, both North Sea and Payton prefer to

proceed in state court.
CONCLUSION
For

the

remand is GRANTED.

foregoing

reasons,

North

Sea’s

motion

to

The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand

this case to the New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County,
and mark this matter closed.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

January
17 , 2012
Central Islip, NY

4