Brown

JOYA LAW FIRM

KAMRAN JOYA, ESQ., NY BAR ID: 6169411

175 Greenwich Street, 38th Floor

New York, New York 10007

415-302-9437

kamran@joya.law

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tiana Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TIANA BROWN,

CASE NO. 26-cv-1539 (JPC)

PLAINTIFF,

V.

YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE (YAI),

DEFENDANT.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT

Plaintiff Tiana Brown, by and through her counsel, respectfully moves this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) for an Order remanding this action to the Supreme

Court of the State of New York, County of New York, from which it was removed.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMAND

I. INTRODUCTION

This action was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and arises

primarily under New York statutory and constitutional law. The Complaint asserts

numerous causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Civil

Rights Law §40-c, and the New York Constitution, all of which fall squarely within the

jurisdiction and expertise of the New York courts.

Although the Complaint references the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the

gravamen of this action concerns discrimination and retaliation under New York statutory

and constitutional law, which substantially predominate over the federal allegations.

Defendant also incorrectly claims that it was not properly served with the Summons and

Complaint. In fact, Plaintiff served Defendant through its counsel after counsel expressly

the pleadings at his office.

For these reasons, the case should be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New

York.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A case removed from state court must be remanded if the federal court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

Removal statutes are strictly construed, and any doubts regarding removability must be

resolved against removal. Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 52 (2d Cir. 1998).

Moreover, federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where state law

claims substantially predominate over federal claims. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix

Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2004); Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d

299 (2d Cir. 2003).

Even where federal jurisdiction technically exists, federal courts may decline to exercise

jurisdiction where state law claims substantially predominate over federal claims. 28 U.S.C.

§1367(c)(2).

The removing party bears the burden of demonstrating that federal jurisdiction exists. Lupo

v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 273 (2d Cir. 1994).

III. THE COMPLAINT IS PREDOMINANTLY BASED ON NEW YORK LAW

The Complaint asserts ten causes of action, the overwhelming majority of which arise

under New York law.

These include claims for:

• Disability discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law

• Failure to provide reasonable accommodation under the New York State Human

Rights Law

• Retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law

• Pregnancy discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law

• Hostile work environment under the New York State Human Rights Law

• Race discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law

• Violations of New York Civil Rights Law §40-c

• Violations of the New York Constitution

Only two claims reference federal law related to the FMLA.

The core allegations concern discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment

under New York law, which substantially predominate over the federal allegations.

New York State Human Rights Law and New York Civil Rights Law. Where state law

claims substantially predominate, federal courts may decline jurisdiction. Valencia ex

rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 305 (2d Cir. 2003).

IV. STATE COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER FMLA CLAIMS

Even if federal jurisdiction exists, remand remains appropriate because state courts

possess concurrent jurisdiction over claims arising under the Family and Medical Leave

Act.

Accordingly, there is no need for federal jurisdiction to resolve the limited FMLA issues

presented in this case.

V. DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT

Defendant asserts in its removal papers that it has not been properly served with the

Summons and Complaint. That assertion is incorrect.

On January 21, 2026, Defendant’s counsel, Daniel Axelrod of Jackson Lewis P.C., sent

written correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel stating that Defendant had retained his firm

to represent it with respect to Plaintiff’s claims and instructing Plaintiff’s counsel to

“direct all future correspondence only to us.”

Plaintiff reasonably relied on this instruction from Defendant’s counsel.

Consistent with that instruction, Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint upon

Young Adult Institute (YAI) c/o Daniel Axelrod, Representing Attorney, at the offices of

Jackson Lewis P.C., located at 58 South Service Road, Suite 250, Melville, New York

11747.

The process server personally delivered the Summons and Complaint to a

representative at the Jackson Lewis office on February 20, 2026.

The Affidavit of Service confirms that the documents were delivered to Michael Lavine,

Office Service Coordinator, who identified himself as authorized to accept service at that

location.

Having instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to direct all communications to defense counsel and

having received the pleadings through service at counsel’s office, Defendant cannot

now claim lack of service as a basis to delay responding to the Complaint.

At a minimum, Defendant had actual notice of the action, and any technical objection to

service cannot justify removal or continued federal jurisdiction.

VI. COMITY AND JUDICIAL ECONOMY FAVOR REMAND

This case involves issues of employment discrimination governed primarily by New York

statutory and constitutional law.

New York courts have particular expertise in interpreting and applying these laws.

Allowing this matter to proceed in state court promotes judicial economy and respects

New York’s strong interest in enforcing its own anti-discrimination laws.

Vil. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Remand this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of

New York, and

2. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: March 4, 2026

New York, New York

JOYA LAW FIRM

Attorneys for Plaintiff

py: > a ———_—

KAMRAN JOYA, ESQ.

motion to remand to state court, Dkt. 9, is denied. Plaintiff's Complaint indisputably brings

arising under federal law, namely the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615, see □□□□ 1,

75-93. "A single claim over which federal-question jurisdiction exists is sufficient to allow

Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 194 (2d Cir. 2005). Contrary to Plaintiff's

"[t]here is no requirement that the federal law claims predominate over the state law claims

for removal to be proper." Spiegel v. Estée Lauder Inc., No. 23 Civ. 11209 (DLC), 2024 WL

57354, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2024). So Plaintiffs motion to remand notwithstanding the presence o

claims fails. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket Number 9.

ORDERED.

April 2025 -—oaxp cronaN

York, New York | united States District Judge

cc: Via E-mail and ECF

Daniel R. Axelrod, Esq., Jackson Lewis, P.C.

58 South Service Road, Suite 250, Melville, New York 11747

Daniel.axelrod@jacksonlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant