Jose Rosario Serrano v. Fefa Express, Inc. and Ferdi Haciali

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Sanne KK DATE FILED:_06/26/2026 JOSE ROSARIO SERRANO, : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-00881 (LJL) -V- : : MEMORANDUM & FEFA EXPRESS, INC. and FERDI HACIALI, : ORDER Defendants. :

wn eK LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed a letter to advise the Court of his intention to move the Court to remand and consolidate the instant action with an action based out of the same accident in Bronx County Supreme Court, Elizabeth Gomez De Perez v. Fefa Express, Inc., Index No. 8194555/2023 (the “State Action”). Dkt. No. 42. Plaintiff's request for remand is denied. Plaintiff's request for remand is untimely. A motion to remand on a basis other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff commenced this action on August 29, 2024 in Bronx County Supreme Court. Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendants removed the action to federal court on January 30, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking remand on May 9, 2025, Dkt. No. 8, which the Court denied without prejudice to renewal by formal motion on May 12, 2025. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff did not file a formal motion. The parties have since completed discovery and the Court has decided Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 37. Trial in this matter is scheduled for August 3, 2026. Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiffs motion is thus denied as untimely. Moreover, even if Plaintiff's proposed motion were timely, 1t would be without merit.

Plaintiff seeks remand because the State Action concerns the same motor vehicle accident and includes similar parties. Dkt. No. 42. Section 1447(e) does not confer district courts with the “authority to remand an otherwise properly removed state court case when a related matter was pending in state court and the prosecution of the two lawsuits in separate courts would risk inconsistent outcomes and waste judicial resources.” Sanchez v. Austin, 2023 WL 6387022, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2023) (citing LeChase Constr. Servs., LLC v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 160, 172 (2d Cir. 2023)). “The plain text of section 1447(e) authorizes district courts to ‘remand [an] action to the [s]tate court’ only ‘[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction’ and the district court decides, in its discretion, to ‘permit [such] joinder.’” LeChase, 63 F.4th at 172 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e)). Plaintiff has filed no motion to join non-diverse parties here, nor indicated an intent to do so in his formal motion. Plaintiff seeks remand on the precise basis that the Second Circuit held in LeChase was impermissible under Section 1447(e). Plaintiff's request to remand is denied with prejudice. In addition, the parties jointly request an extension of time to file the pretrial order “and subsequent deadlines.” Dkt. No. 42 at 1. The Court will hold a conference on the request on Monday, June 29, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Parties are directed to dial into the Court’s teleconference number at 646-453-4442, Conference ID# 358639322, and follow the necessary prompts. The parties should be prepared to discuss dates on which the witnesses can be deposed so as not to delay the August 3, 2026 date for trial of this action. SO ORDERED. □□ et 3 Dated: June 26, 2026 BAD New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge