Martin et al. v. 3M Company et al.

S.D. New York

Martin et al. v. 3M Company et al.

DecidedNovember 17, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-09395

StatusUnknown

This text of Martin et al. v. 3M Company et al. (Martin et al. v. 3M Company 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

Martin et al. v. 3M Company et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Martin et al., Plaintiff(s), 25-CV-9395 (DEH) v.

3M Company et al., ORDER Defendant(s).

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: On November 10, 2025, Defendants Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard, Inc. (collectively, “Tyco”) filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1446, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was subsequently assigned to this Court. Tyco asserts that under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), they are entitled to removal so they can have their federal defense adjudicated in a federal forum. See Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co., 842 F.3d 805, 810–15 (3d Cir. 2016). Further, Tyco contends that they are not required to notify or obtain the consent of any other Defendant in this action in order to remove Plaintiffs’ action as a whole under § 1442(a)(1). See, e.g., Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1253 (9th Cir. 2006); Hilbert v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 529 F. Supp. 2d 187, 195 (D. Mass. 2008). However, Tyco has served a copy of their Notice of Removal upon all other parties. ECF No. 3. By November 25, 2025, Plaintiffs and other Defendants shall file a joint letter, not to exceed 10 pages, outlining their respective positions on removal to federal court. The letter shall conform with Local Rule 7.1(b). Tyco shall file any reply by December 3, 2025, which shall not exceed 5 pages and shall conform with Local Rule 7.1(b).

SO ORDERED. Dated: November 14, 2025 New York, New York DAA A DALE E. HO United States District Judge

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 Martin et al., Plaintiff(s), 25-CV-9395 (DEH) v.

3M Company et al., ORDER Defendant(s).

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: On November 10, 2025, Defendants Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard, Inc. (collectively, “Tyco”) filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1446, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was subsequently assigned to this Court. Tyco asserts that under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), they are entitled to removal so they can have their federal defense adjudicated in a federal forum. See Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co., 842 F.3d 805, 810–15 (3d Cir. 2016). Further, Tyco contends that they are not required to notify or obtain the consent of any other Defendant in this action in order to remove Plaintiffs’ action as a whole under § 1442(a)(1). See, e.g., Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1253 (9th Cir. 2006); Hilbert v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 529 F. Supp. 2d 187, 195 (D. Mass. 2008). However, Tyco has served a copy of their Notice of Removal upon all other parties. ECF No. 3. By November 25, 2025, Plaintiffs and other Defendants shall file a joint letter, not to exceed 10 pages, outlining their respective positions on removal to federal court. The letter shall conform with Local Rule 7.1(b). Tyco shall file any reply by December 3, 2025, which shall not exceed 5 pages and shall conform with Local Rule 7.1(b).

SO ORDERED. Dated: November 14, 2025 New York, New York DAA A DALE E. HO United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martin et al. v. 3M Company et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-et-al-v-3m-company-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack