govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_26-cv-00146-0

-1- 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
-------------------------------- x 
Civil No. 3:26-CV-146 (AWT) 
 
 
BAOHONG TAI, 
 
  Plaintiff, 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
v. 
 
STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE 
COMPANY, 
 
  Defendant. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
-------------------------------- X 
 
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT 
 
For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff’s Motion for 
Remand and Rule 11 Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 12) is hereby 
GRANTED. 
On or about June 5, 2024, plaintiff Baohong Tai initiated 
this case in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District 
of New Haven at New Haven. On January 29, 2026, defendant State 
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) filed 
its Notice of Removal removing this case from Connecticut 
Superior Court. See ECF No. 1. State Farm stated that the Notice 
of Removal “is being filed within thirty (30) days after this 
case became removable, as it became removable at the time of the 
[Superior Court’s January 21, 2026] Order allowing Plaintiff’s 
First Amended Complaint to be docketed, and is therefore timely 
Case 3:26-cv-00146-AWT     Document 15     Filed 03/13/26     Page 1 of 6
-2- 
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1446(b)(3).” Id. at 2. However, 
“the clock [for a defendant’s removal petition that relies on 28 
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3)] begins to run when ‘an amended pleading, 
motion, order or other paper’ discloses facts giving rise to 
removability.” Callen v. Callen, 827 F. Supp. 2d 214, 216 
(S.D.N.Y. 2011) (emphasis in original) (internal citation 
omitted). Here, State Farm was served by the plaintiff on 
January 22, 2025 with a Withdrawal notice that the non-diverse 
defendants in this case were withdrawn as parties from the 
action. See ECF No. 12-1 at 45-47 (copy of Withdrawal notice).  
“The transformation of a state-court case from non-
removable to removable--so as to begin a new 30-day period in 
which to remove--may occur in a number of ways.” Wright & 
Miller, 14C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3731 (Rev. 4th ed.). For 
example, “a change in the parties to the state court action such 
as through the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the defendants 
whose presence destroyed complete diversity of citizenship may 
make a previously unremovable action removable.” Id. “Thus, an 
amendment of the complaint will not revive the period for 
removal if the state-court case previously was removable but the 
defendant failed to exercise the right to remove.” Id.  
Thus, the Withdrawal notice is an “other paper” within the 
meaning of 28 U.S.C § 1446(b)(3), and State Farm had notice 
beginning on January 22, 2025 that this case was eligible for 
Case 3:26-cv-00146-AWT     Document 15     Filed 03/13/26     Page 2 of 6
-3- 
removal. Because this case was eligible for removal on January 
22, 2025 and was not removed until January 29, 2026, it was not 
timely removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1446(b)(3). 
The defendant also contends that removal was not barred by 
the bad faith requirement in 24 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1), which 
states:  
A case may not be removed under subsection (b)(3) on the 
basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 more than 1 
year after commencement of the action, unless the district 
court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in 
order to prevent a defendant from removing the action. 
 
“The plain language of the removal statute [section 1446(c)] 
makes clear that, for otherwise untimely removal to be allowed, 
the ‘bad faith’ invoked must relate to a party’s conduct 
obscuring facts that would otherwise justify removal. Other 
courts within this Circuit have explained . . . that the phrase 
‘bad faith’ in section 1446 relates to nefarious conduct that 
aims to defeat an opponent’s right to remove.” Bank of New York 
v. Consiglio, 2017 WL 9480197, at *4 (D. Conn. Oct. 2, 2017) 
(alteration in original) (citation omitted).  
Here, State Farm asserts in conclusory fashion that “[i]t 
is clear that [by] amending her complaint on the eve of trial 
[the plaintiff] sought to preclude State Farm from defending 
itself against Plaintiff’s bad faith claim in Federal Court.” 
Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s 
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 13) at 4. It 
Case 3:26-cv-00146-AWT     Document 15     Filed 03/13/26     Page 3 of 6
-4- 
is not apparent from this statement how the plaintiff’s 
amendment of her Complaint relates to an effort to defeat 
diversity jurisdiction. For example, “[c]ourts in this Circuit 
have declined to infer strategic conduct and excuse an untimely 
removal where plaintiffs have failed to answer multiple requests 
for damages, Martinez v. Yordy, 2016 WL 8711443, at *2-3 
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016), fraudulently joined a nondiverse party 
in the original complaint, Hill v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 386 
F. Supp. 2d 427, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), requested three extensions 
to respond to a motion to dismiss a nondiverse party, Cruz v. 
Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. LLC, 2020 WL 3430193, at *3-4 
(S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020), and included in the original complaint 
a non-diverse party whom they ‘actively prosecuted the case 
against,’ Ehrenreich v. Black, 994 F. Supp. 2d 284, 288-89 
(E.D.N.Y. 2014).” Marin v. Sephora USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3999711, 
at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020). The plaintiff’s conduct here 
does not even rise to the level of these examples, where it was 
found that the plaintiff’s conduct did not constitute bad faith 
for purposes of Section 1446(c)(1). Therefore, even if State 
Farm had been able to establish that it first became aware of 
facts giving rise to removability on January 22, 2026, State 
Farm could not show that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 
1446(c)(1) are satisfied.  
It is quite clear that State Farm received notice on 
Case 3:26-cv-00146-AWT     Document 15     Filed 03/13/26     Page 4 of 6
-5- 
January 22, 2025 that a previously unremovable action had become 
removable, and it is also quite clear that State Farm was 
required to show that the plaintiff had acted in bad faith in 
order to prevent State Farm from removing the action but failed 
to make any effort to analyze that question. For these reasons, 
in addition to granting the motion to remand, the court is 
granting the plaintiff’s request for costs and attorney’s fees 
related to the review and analysis of materials submitted by 
State Farm in support of petition for removal, the research and 
drafting of the motion to remand, and the review of additional 
filings by State Farm in this court since removal. This is 
particularly appropriate in light of the state court orders that 
were issued just prior to the removal.  
 This case is hereby REMANDED to Connecticut Superior Court, 
Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven.  
The plaintiff shall file his motion for attorney’s fees and 
costs within 14 days and the defendant shall file any opposition 
within 14 days after the filing of the plaintiff’s motion. This 
court will retain limited jurisdiction for the purpose of 
deciding the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. See Bryant v. 
Britt, 420 F.3d 161, 162 (2005) (“[A] district court has 
jurisdiction to consider a motion for fees and costs under § 
1447(c), even after it has remanded a case to state court.”)   
  
Case 3:26-cv-00146-AWT     Document 15     Filed 03/13/26     Page 5 of 6
-6- 
It is so ordered. 
Dated this 13th day of March 2026, at Hartford, 
Connecticut. 
 
                  /s/AWT                      
        Alvin W. Thompson 
         United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-00146-AWT     Document 15     Filed 03/13/26     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight