Munoz v. Jam. Builders LLC
| Docket Number | 23-CV-7864 (OEM) (CLP) |
| Decision Date | 29 November 2023 |
| Parties | BONIFACIO MUNOZ, Plaintiff, v. JAMAICA BUILDERS LLC, 153 JAMAICA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, NEW DESTINY HOUSING CORPORATION, JAMAICA OWNER LLC, BFC PARTNERS, L.P., JAMAICA RETAIL OWNER LLC, SMJ DEVELOPMENT LLC, 153 JAMAICA DEVELOPER LLC, BFC PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT LLC, SMJ JAMAICA LLC, BFC ASSOCIATES, LLC, RISE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC, RISE CONCRETE LLC, and CONCRETE SUPERSTRUCTURES, INC., Defendants. RISE CONCRETE LLC, Third Party Plaintiff v. ARO CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. Third Party Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Before the Court is what is on its face a motion to stay, pending appeal, this Court's order remanding this case to state court for want of subject matter jurisdiction brought pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a). However, at its core, the request for a stay-and indeed the removal of this action to this forum-appear to be yet another attempt by the removing defendants to end run an unfavorable discovery decision made by the state court under the guise of purported violations of Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For the reasons stated below, the motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.
In September of 2019, plaintiff Bonifacio Munoz (“Plaintiff” or “Munoz”) was injured while on the job at a construction site in Jamaica, Queens. See Notice of Removal, ECF 1 (“Removal Notice”), ¶ 3. He subsequently sued multiple defendants, including the building owners, contractors, and city agencies, in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, in or around October 2020 for alleged negligence and various violations of the New York Labor Law. See Removal Notice at 1; see generally New York Supreme Court Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF 1-1. In response defendants Rise Development Partners, LLC and Rise Concrete LLC (together, “Rise Defendants”) responded by impleading Plaintiff's employer, third-party defendant ARO Construction Group, Inc. (“ARO”). Id. ¶ 4.
Three years later, after extensive discovery, including several depositions of Munoz, the Rise Defendants, along with others (together, the “Removing Defendants”[1]), filed a notice of removal and removed the state court action to this Court. See Removal Notice ¶ 9; Transcript of 9/11/2023 State Court Hearing (“Hrg Tr.”), ECF 1-10, at 6:17-23. The alleged basis for removal of the action cited in the Notice of Removal was federal question or “arising under” jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See id. (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); Removal Notice ¶ 6. The Removing Defendants' theory of jurisdiction is predicated on the fact that, during discovery, they discovered facts that pointed to Munoz having several “different aliases” and that [2] Removal Notice ¶¶ 9-10. Accordingly, because of this purported “scheme to conceal his identity,” “[Munoz]'s presentment of his personal injury claims thus result[ed] in a deprivation of [Removing Defendants'] rights to present an adequate defense guaranteed under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively, of the United States Constitution.” Removal Notice ¶¶ 11-12.[3]Specifically, to the extent a theory of federal question jurisdiction is cognizable, Removing Defendants allege that “they have a Constitutional right to defend themselves” and it is a “Constitutional violation when a defendant's right to prepare a defense is jeopardized” and Munoz's purported use of differing names or “false identities” gives rise to “Constitutional issues,” namely “deprivation of [Removing Defendants'] property rights vis-a-vis an unjust and inflated monetary award, whether in settlement or judgment after trial, due to its inability to prepare defenses related to prior injuries, pre-existing conditions and treatment history.” Removal Notice ¶¶ 13-15, 20.
However when the Removing Defendants pressed this same theory before the state court in a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's purported failure to comply with their discovery requests, see Defendants' State Court Motion to Dismiss (“Defs' State MTD”), ECF 1-8, they were, in their words, “rebuffed.” See Removing Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause (“OTSC Response”), ECF 6 at 1-2. Specifically, the state court judge opined that:
Defendants' argument that plaintiff failed to provide adequately identifying information is without merit, as plaintiff's counsel demonstrated that plaintiff identified himself at his deposition and was identified in a number of documents, including the accident report and Department of Buildings paperwork.
Motion to Dismiss Order dated 9/21/2023 (“MTD Decision”), ECF 1-11, at 4.
Unsatisfied that the state court had not “properly explore[d] the Constitutional issue” they believed apparent, the Removing Defendants removed this action hoping for another bite of the apple arguing that the “federal judicial system is the only mechanism that can truly resolve the Constitutional issues presented here.” OTSC Response at 3.
On October 24, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause as to the basis of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331, given the well-plead complaint rule. See Order dated 10/24/2023 (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 14, (1983)). The Rise Defendants filed their OTSC Response on November 1, 2023. On November 2, 2023, the Court issued the following docket order remanding the actions and terminating the case:
The Court finds that defendants have not stated a cognizable basis for federal removal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). First, there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties claimed or in the complaint. See Compl., [] ¶¶ 1, 6. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction must lie. “Federal question jurisdiction exists where a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Empire HealthChoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir. 2005) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). “Subject matter jurisdiction will lie only where the court determines that the substance of [the plaintiff's] allegations raises a federal question.” Id. (same). “The existence of a federal question must be determined solely by reference to the plaintiff's own claim not by reference to statements raised in anticipation or avoidance of possible defenses that may be interposed.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Defendants point to no substantial question of federal law in or arising from the plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff's complaint is plainly a worker's injury suit premised on negligence and New York statutes. See Compl. ¶¶ 218, 220-237. Defendants' claims that they are being denied constitutional due process because “there are outstanding questions of who Plaintiff is and Plaintiff's various identities” and that they have been “rebuffed” by the State Court in pursuing this theory is unavailing and unsupported by any authority.
Id. (citations omitted).
On November 7, 2023, the Rise Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit, ECF 8, and then filed the instant motion to stay the remand order pending appeal on November 14, 2023. On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition, ECF 12 (“Pl's Opp.”), to the stay motion.
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009) (quoting Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672, 47 (1926)). “It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and [t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Id. (cleaned up). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. (citations omitted).
Under the Nken factors, a court considers: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at 434. “The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id.
“It is well-established in this circuit that a party seeking a stay may satisfy the first factor- 'likelihood of success'-by showing that there are ‘serious questions' going to the merits of the dispute and that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor.” Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. 16-CV-7036(NGG)(SJB), 2017 WL 11504834, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017) . Here, Removing Defendants fail to demonstrate any serious questions on the merits.
Notably Removing Defendants entirely fail to point...
To continue reading
Request your trial