Lumaque et al v. Hudgins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On July 12, 2024, the plaintiffs commenced this action in New York Supreme Court,
Queens County, seeking monetary damages for injuries they sustained in a car accident. (See
ECF No. 1-1.) More than a year later, on November 3, 2025, the defendants removed the action
to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) In their Notice of Removal, the
defendants did not contend that the plaintiffs acted in bad faith or otherwise sought to prevent
removal of the case. (See id.)
On November 5, 2025, Chief Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon ordered the defendants
to show cause why the case should not be remanded because the defendants did not remove it to
federal court within one year after the plaintiff filed the complaint. (See ECF Order dated Nov.
5, 2025.) On November 14, 2025, the defendants responded that the plaintiffs did not timely
respond to their demand for damages, which prevented them from removing within a year of the
complaint being filed; the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs’ failure was “intentional” and in
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
KETSIA LUMAQUE, WOODSON
CHRISTIANO GEFFRARD, and MYRLANDE
ALLEN,
Plaintiffs,
– against –
MATTHEW VANCE HUDGINS, NORTH
AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC., SIRVA
SETTLEMENT, INC., and RELOCATION
BENEFITS, LLC.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
25-CV-6096 (AMD) (VMS)
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
Case 1:25-cv-06096-AMD-VMS Document 9 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
“bad faith.” (ECF No. 7 at 2.) On December 3, 2025, Judge Scanlon directed the plaintiffs to
respond and provide “any reasons for Plaintiff’s delay in responding to Defendant’s discovery
demands.” (ECF Order dated Dec. 3, 2025.) On December 12, 2025, the plaintiffs attributed
the delay to “legitimate factors”: they “were undergoing complex and evolving medical
treatment, including surgeries and rehabilitative care, which contributed to the time required to
compile complete and accurate discovery responses.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.)
Judge Scanlon issued a sua sponte Report and Recommendation on December 30, 2025,
recommending that the Court remand this action to state court because the defendants did not
remove the case within one year of the complaint being filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1).
(ECF Order dated Dec. 30, 2025.) In particular, Judge Scanlon found that the plaintiffs’
explanation for their delay was reasonable. (Id.) Judge Scanlon described the defendants’
assertions that the plaintiffs acted in bad faith as “conclusory and rooted in speculation.” (Id.
(quoting Elliott v. Jaquez, 777 F. Supp. 3d 136, 152 (E.D.N.Y. 2025)).) Given the plaintiffs’
explanation for the delay, the defendants’ three unanswered requests over 15 months “do not
support application of the bad faith exception [to the one-year time limit for removal under 28
U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1)], which must be construed narrowly.” (Id.) Accordingly, Judge Scanlon
recommended remanding the case to state court. (Id.) No objections have been filed to the
Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To accept a Report
and Recommendation to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund
Case 1:25-cv-06096-AMD-VMS Document 9 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.
Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).
The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Scanlon’s well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation and finds no error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the case to the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County.
SO ORDERED.
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 15, 2026
s/Ann M. Donnelly
Case 1:25-cv-06096-AMD-VMS Document 9 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>