Neroni et al v. Delaware County et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FREDERICK J. NERONI and TATIANA NERONI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DELAWARE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
3:25-cv-00801 (BKS/ML)
Appearances:
Plaintiffs pro se:
Frederick J. Neroni
Tatiana Neroni
Georgetown, SC 29440
For Defendants Delaware County, Delaware County Board of Supervisors, Tina Mole, Amy
Merklen, Craig Dumond, John Hubbard, Shawn Smith, Richard Northrup, Estate of Sylvia
Armanno, Keith Weaver, Tina Moshier, Katherine Taggart, and Wayne Marshfield:
Frank Miller
Hancock Estabrook LLP
1800 AXA Tower I
100 Madison Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
For Defendants Town of Delhi, Maya Boukai, and Dale Downin
Adam Rodd
Drake, Loeb Law Firm
555 Hudson Valley Avenue, Suite 100
New Windsor, NY 12553
For Defendants Village of Delhi, Ian Lamont, Jeffrey Gearhart, Josh Morgan, Michael Mills,
Tiffany Crozier, and Justin Baxter:
Courtney E. Heinel
Earl T. Redding
Roemer Wallens Gold Mineaux LLP
13 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203
For Defendant Letitia James:
Letitia James
Case 3:25-cv-00801-BKS-ML Document 66 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Attorney General of the State of New York
Timothy P. Mulvey
Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel
300 South State Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Frederick J. Neroni and Tatiana Neroni brought this action arising primarily
from Plaintiffs’ ownership of property in Delaware County, New York. (Dkt. No. 2). Although
they originally asserted both federal law claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and state law claims,
Plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove all federal law claims. (Dkt. No. 44), and moved to
remand the case back to state court. (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47). For the reasons that follow, these
motions are granted.
II. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint with the Delaware County Supreme Court against
Defendants on May 18, 2025. (Dkt. No. 2). Defendants Village of Delhi, Ian Lamont, Jeffrey
Gearhart, Josh Morgan, Michael Mills, Tiffany Crozier, and Justin Baxter (“the Village
Defendants”) removed the case from the Delaware County Supreme Court to the Northern
District of New York on June 18, 2025 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1). The remaining Defendants, with the exception of Defendant
Letitia James, appeared for the purpose of consenting to removal. (Id., at 3–5). On July 9, 2025,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand asserting, inter alia, bad faith removal and arguing that
remand was warranted based on several abstention doctrines. (Dkt. No. 25).
All Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Dkt Nos. 29, 31,
33, 36). In response, Plaintiffs amended their complaint as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 3:25-cv-00801-BKS-ML Document 66 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 5

3
15(a)(1)(B) on August 18, 2025. (Dkt. No. 44). Plaintiffs’ amended complaint removed all
federal claims. (Id.). The same date, Plaintiffs moved to remand the amended complaint to state
court on the basis that the Court now lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47). All
Defendants withdrew their motions to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 51).
On August 29, 2025, the Court issued a text order directing Defendants to “file a
response to the pending motions to remand.” (Dkt. No. 53). All Defendants, except for
Defendant James, responded to Plaintiffs’ motion for remand. (Dkt. No. 55; Dkt. No. 56; Dkt.
No. 57). The responding parties, who were the parties that removed this case or consented to
remove it, concede that “no basis for federal jurisdiction remains, (Dkt. No. 55, ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 56,
¶ 5; Dkt. No. 57, ¶ 5), and none oppose remand, (Dkt. No. 55, at ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 56, at ¶ 5; Dkt.
No. 57, ¶ 5). Defendant James filed a cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint because
“the causes of action in the Amended Complaint . . . are completely different and bear no relation
back to the two claims against Ms. James in the original Complaint.” (Dkt. No. 54). The
remaining claims against Defendant James are all state law claims. (See Dkt. No. 44, ¶¶ 370–
425, 469–480).
III. 	DISCUSSION
“When a case has been removed from state court to federal court, ‘if at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.’” Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 427 (2d Cir. 2014) (per
curiam) (alteration adopted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). If a case is removed under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1441(a), and “the plaintiff eliminates the federal-law claims that enabled removal,
leaving only state-law claims behind, the court’s power to decide the dispute dissolves. With the
loss of federal-question jurisdiction, the court loses as well its supplemental jurisdiction over the
state claims.” Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25–26, 30 (2025). “It is
Case 3:25-cv-00801-BKS-ML Document 66 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 5

4
well-settled that the party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction . . .” Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943
F.3d 613, 617 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir.
2006) and Liranzano v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2012)). Here, Plaintiffs
eliminated their federal law claims on which the removing Defendants based removal, and
Defendants do not assert any alternative basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court remands the action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Lupo
v. Hum. Affs. Int'l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 273–74 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Thus, because [the plaintiff’s]
complaint does not allege an amount in controversy in excess of [the jurisdictional amount], and
[the defendant] failed in its notice of removal to assert any amount in controversy or even raise
the issue of diversity jurisdiction, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over the present case.”)
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to remand (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47), are GRANTED; and
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ initial motion to remand (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED as moot;
and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant James’ cross motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
(Dkt, No. 54), is DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, under Index No. EF2025 - 447; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail a certified copy of this Memorandum-Decision and
Case 3:25-cv-00801-BKS-ML Document 66 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Order to the clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Delaware County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Syracuse, New York
Case 3:25-cv-00801-BKS-ML Document 66 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 5