## Facts

- Cardell Payne and Dahlia Payne, residents of Parkchester North Condominiums in the Bronx, sued condominium-related entities and several building security officers, some with NYPD “Special Patrol Officer” status.
- The complaint asserted state-law tort claims (including assault, battery, false arrest/false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and negligence) and also alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Plaintiffs filed in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County (Aug. 1999), and filed an amended complaint (Oct. 1999) expressly invoking federal constitutional rights in multiple allegations.
- Defendants initially attempted removal but did not complete it properly; defendants later removed the case successfully to the Southern District of New York (June 2000).
- In federal court, discovery proceeded: defendants served interrogatories (July 2000), depositions were taken and/or scheduled, and plaintiffs did not provide interrogatory responses until late Feb. 2001.
- More than seven months after removal, plaintiffs disclosed that they disputed federal jurisdiction and moved to amend the complaint to delete the federal claims and to remand to state court.

## Issues

1. Whether leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) should be granted to strike all federal claims after removal.
2. Whether the case should be remanded once federal claims are withdrawn (or proposed to be withdrawn), or whether the court should retain jurisdiction, including supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to strike all federal claims.
- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to state court.
- The court concluded that the pleaded federal constitutional claims supported federal-question jurisdiction and that plaintiffs’ delayed request suggested a tactical effort to change forums after substantial federal proceedings.
- The court indicated it would consider a narrowly justified amendment that would not materially delay the case or prejudice defendants, within a short deadline.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires, but may be denied for undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or prejudice.
- Federal-question jurisdiction is assessed from the face of the operative pleading at removal; expressly pleaded federal constitutional claims are sufficient absent a showing they are insubstantial.
- Post-removal amendments primarily aimed at defeating federal jurisdiction may be denied where timing and circumstances indicate forum manipulation.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, when federal claims are withdrawn, a federal court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, including the extent of federal-court investment and the risk of duplication or delay.

## Conclusion

The court refused to permit plaintiffs, after substantial delay and ongoing federal discovery, to amend away explicitly pleaded Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in order to obtain remand, and it retained the case in federal court.


Payne v. Parkchester N. Condominiums, 134 F. Supp. 2d 582 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)