Heather Hardy v. DiBella Entertainment, Inc. et al

S.D. New York

Heather Hardy v. DiBella Entertainment, Inc. et al

DecidedMarch 25, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-00747

StatusUnknown

This text of Heather Hardy v. DiBella Entertainment, Inc. et al (Heather Hardy v. DiBella Entertainment, Inc. et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heather Hardy v. DiBella Entertainment, Inc. et al, (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HEATHER HARDY, Plaintiff, 26 Civ. 747 (PAE) ~ ORDER DIBELLA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On January 28, 2026, defendants Lou DiBella and DiBella Entertainment, Inc. (““DiBella defendants”) filed a notice of removal in the above-captioned action, brought by former professional boxer Heather Hardy against the DiBella defendants, Everlast Worldwide Inc., Frasers Group PLC, Adidas America, Inc., Rival Boxing Gear Inc., and unnamed defendants. Dkt. 1. On January 30, 2026, the Court ordered counsel for the removing defendants to promptly serve all parties in the action, and to file a letter on the docket of the case stating whether “all defendants who had been served at the time of removal joined in the notice of removal.” Dkt. 4. On February 9, 2026, the DiBella defendants stated that none of the other defendants have joined in its notice of removal. Dkt. 5. On February 23, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to state court, contending that the DiBella defendants’ failure to obtain the consent of all other defendants made removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) improper. Dkt. 6. On March 23, 2026, the DiBella defendants notified the Court that the parties have reached a settlement in principle as to plaintiffs claims against them, and that they do not oppose remand. Dkt. 15. Accordingly, the Court finds that remand is warranted. Taylor v. Medtronic, Inc., 15 F.4th 148, 151 (2d Cir. 2021); Ell v. SET. Landscape Design, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 188, 193 (S.D.N.Y.

1999) (“all named [defendants] over whom the state court acquired jurisdiction must join in the removal petition for removal to be proper’’); Heller v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 09 Civ. 6193, 2010 WL 481336, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2010). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to remand this case to the Supreme Court of New York (Commercial Division). SO ORDERED.

pv f A en PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge

Dated: March 25, 2026 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HEATHER HARDY, Plaintiff, 26 Civ. 747 (PAE) ~ ORDER DIBELLA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On January 28, 2026, defendants Lou DiBella and DiBella Entertainment, Inc. (““DiBella defendants”) filed a notice of removal in the above-captioned action, brought by former professional boxer Heather Hardy against the DiBella defendants, Everlast Worldwide Inc., Frasers Group PLC, Adidas America, Inc., Rival Boxing Gear Inc., and unnamed defendants. Dkt. 1. On January 30, 2026, the Court ordered counsel for the removing defendants to promptly serve all parties in the action, and to file a letter on the docket of the case stating whether “all defendants who had been served at the time of removal joined in the notice of removal.” Dkt. 4. On February 9, 2026, the DiBella defendants stated that none of the other defendants have joined in its notice of removal. Dkt. 5. On February 23, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to state court, contending that the DiBella defendants’ failure to obtain the consent of all other defendants made removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) improper. Dkt. 6. On March 23, 2026, the DiBella defendants notified the Court that the parties have reached a settlement in principle as to plaintiffs claims against them, and that they do not oppose remand. Dkt. 15. Accordingly, the Court finds that remand is warranted. Taylor v. Medtronic, Inc., 15 F.4th 148, 151 (2d Cir. 2021); Ell v. SET. Landscape Design, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 188, 193 (S.D.N.Y.

1999) (“all named [defendants] over whom the state court acquired jurisdiction must join in the removal petition for removal to be proper’’); Heller v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 09 Civ. 6193, 2010 WL 481336, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2010). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to remand this case to the Supreme Court of New York (Commercial Division). SO ORDERED.

pv f A en PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge

Dated: March 25, 2026 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Heather Hardy v. DiBella Entertainment, Inc. et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heather-hardy-v-dibella-entertainment-inc-et-al-nysd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack