615 Building Company LLC. v. Smith et al

Filing 2

ORDER: The Court notes that Defendant is a barred attorney, and, accordingly, will not grant her the "special solicitude" usually afforded to pro se litigants. See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 103 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendant is directed to show cause, by filing a declaration by February 13, 2024, why this action should not be remanded to state court. Defendant's declaration must allege facts addressing each issue identified in this order. If Defendant fails to comply with this order within the prescribed time, the Court will remand this action under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) to the Supreme Court, New York County. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 2/6/2024) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
615 (Building) Company LLC,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/6/2024

Plaintiff,
-againstLouisa A. Smith,

24 Civ. 753 (AT)
ORDER

Defendant.
ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Defendant pro se Louisa A. Smith’s notice of removal, filed
February 2, 2024. ECF No. 1. The notice is deficient in several ways. First, it does not
contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all
process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant,” as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(a). Second, a defendant must file a notice of removal “within 30 days after the
receipt . . of a copy of the initial pleading . . . , or within 30 days after the service of summons
upon the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Defendant’s notice of removal states that she
“has sought for yearly three years to be heard in state court,” suggesting that removal is
untimely. ECF No. 1 at 2. Third, the notice does not indicate the basis for the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction.
The Court notes that Defendant is a barred attorney, and, accordingly, will not grant her
the “special solicitude” usually afforded to pro se litigants. See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d
90, 103 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendant is directed to show cause, by filing a declaration by February
13, 2024, why this action should not be remanded to state court. Defendant’s declaration must
allege facts addressing each issue identified in this order. If Defendant fails to comply with this
order within the prescribed time, the Court will remand this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
to the Supreme Court, New York County.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2024
New York, New York