UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : VINCENT CAMARDA, : : Plaintiff, : -v- : 24-CV-192 (JMF) : NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER : MEMORANDUM OPINION CORPORATION d/b/a AMTRAK et al., : AND ORDER : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On January 10, 2024, Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (d/b/a “Amtrak”) removed this action from the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County. See ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 16-21. For removal to be proper, however, all defendants must join or consent to removal, Metro. Transp. Auth. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., No. 14-CV-9059 (PAE),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2015), and Amtrak’s notice of removal did not allege that the other Defendant, United Rental, Inc., timely joined or consented to the removal. Accordingly, this Court issued an order requiring Amtrak to show cause why the action should not be remanded. See ECF No. 8. On January 31, 2024, Amtrak filed a response conceding that while it “had a good faith belief that United Rental would consent to removal of this case to Federal Court,” it had not actually obtained consent from United Rental before filing its notice of removal. Moreover, United Rental later communicated that it did not consent to removal and instead filed its Answer in state court. See ECF No. 11, at 2. Amtrak thus concedes that removal is improper and “stipulates to remand this case to New York County Supreme Court.”

It follows that — whether or not the removal would have otherwise been proper, a question the Court need not and does not reach — the case must be and is remanded back to the state court from whence it came.! The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately remand this case back to the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, and to close the case on this Court’s docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2024 New York, New York ESSE RMAN nited States District Judge

To be clear, the removal would have been improper, and remand required, even if United Rental had not indicated that it opposed removal, as the law requires notice of consent within thirty days of removal. See Taylor v. Medtronic, Inc.,

, 151 (2d Cir. 2021) (Where, as here, a properly served defendant fails to provide notice of consent to removal within the thirty-day statutory period, the defendant cannot cure that failure by providing late consent.”).