United States District Court, E.D. New York
STANLEY J. CAREY, Plaintiffs,
ROBERT RIPP, Defendants.
Moscou Faltischek, P.C. Attorneys for the Plaintiff, By: E.
Christopher Murray, Esq., Joseph R. Harbeson, Esq., Melissa
Sanderleaf, Esq., Of Counsel.
W. Palmer Attorney for the Defendant, By: John W. Palmer,
Esq., Of Counsel.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER
D. SPATT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Stanley J. Carey (the “Plaintiff”)
commenced this defamation action in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Nassau County against the Defendant Robert
Ripp (the “Defendant”). The Defendant
subsequently removed the action to federal court.
before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff to remand the case
back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau
County. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's motion
The Relevant Facts
Plaintiff and the Defendant are residents of New York State.
The Plaintiff is the superintendent of the Massapequa Water
District (the “MWD”).
2, 2017, the Defendant visited the MWD to review documents.
The Plaintiff assisted the Defendant during his visit, and
the Defendant videotaped certain portions of the visit.
same day, the Defendant posted the video of his visit on
Facebook. On the video, the Defendant stated, inter
alia, “[in my opinion] [the Plaintiff] is
implicated in some seriously questionable, possibly criminal
behavior.” (Compl. ¶ 14). The Defendant accused
the Plaintiff of corruption. As of the filing of the
complaint, the video had received over 1, 400 views.
22, 2017, the Plaintiff was quoted in a Newsday article. That
same day, the Defendant commented on the article on
Newsday's website. He again accused the Plaintiff of
corruption. The Defendant said that the Plaintiff “is
responsible for approving decades of no show no bid contracts
for corrupt [Town of Oyster Bay] [o]fficials and contractors.
. . . [The Plaintiff] will do and say whatever he's
told.” (Id. ¶ 18). The Defendant posted
these comments on his Facebook page after they were removed
from Newsday's website.
The Relevant Procedural History
August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County. The
complaint includes two purported causes of action, but
because an injunction is a remedy and not a cause of action,
Chiste v. Hotels.com L.P., 756 F.Supp.2d 382, 406
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[I]njunctions are remedies, not
causes of action.”) (collecting cases), his sole cause
of action is defamation.
August 21, 2017, the Defendant removed the action to federal
court. The Defendant based his removal on the fact that
“a [f]ederal [q]uestion arises out of a violation of
the First Amendment [to] the Constitution of the Unite[d]
States of America. The complaint seeks ‘prior