Rennie v. Top View/Go New York Tours/South East Personnel

MEMORANDUM & ORDER This case was removed by defendant Go New York Tours Inc. d/b/a TopView Sightseeing¹ (“Defendant”) to this Court on March 17, 2023. Pro se plaintiff David Rennie (“Plaintiff”) now moves to remand this case back to Supreme Court of the State of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447. Dkt. No. 6. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to remand is granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff commenced this action pro se on or about November 4, 2022, by filing a summons and complaint (“Complaint”) in New York State Supreme Court, New York County. Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendant filed a notice of representation and received a copy of the Complaint from Plaintiff on February 16, 2023. Dkt. No. 1 6. On or about March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”) in New York State Supreme Court. Dkt. No. 1-2. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on or about October 3, 2022, Defendant wrongfully terminated his employment, released him from his weekly schedule as a bus driver, and “threatened [him] to confess to a violation,” with such threat coming from the Director of Operations without union representation, after falsely accusing him of smoking within 100 feet of one of Defendant’s buses. Dkt. No. 1-2 at ECF p. 2. Plaintiff alleges that on September 25, 2022, he refused to drive a defective bus, as he was permitted; the bus had a non-functional global positioning system (“GPS”) and a defective audio system. Id. at ECF p. 3. As a result, he claims that he was wrongfully terminated. See id. He claims that the only evidence that supported his termination for smoking within 100 feet of the vehicle “was a blurry cell phone video with no depiction of actual smoke, no facial recognition, just the profile of a Black Male.” Id. Management also attempted to terminate Plaintiff’s employment without union representation. Id. Plaintiff claims that an email confession admitting to smoking an electric cigarette was fabricated and that a “Loop Inspection,” claiming that he ran four red lights, sped on the West Side Highway, and had disruptive passengers, was also fabricated. Id. at ECF p. 4. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that in April 2022, he gave a twenty-plus page manual to the Operations Manager, which he spent “upwards of $400…and many hours, days and months to complete.” Id. at ECF pp. 1, 3. However, the manual was not returned after two requests. Id. Plaintiff brings four causes of action: (1) wrongful termination based on his termination without tangible evidence for the violation of smoking within 100 feet of a commercial vehicle, id. at ECF p. 3; (2) discrimination because he was not promoted to a trainer and was terminated without union representation, id.; (3) “theft by deception” because Defendant failed to return the safety manual (the “Safety Manual Draft”) that was his intellectual property, id.; and (4) falsifying business records in connection with the allegedly falsified evidence used to support the termination of his employment, id. at ECF p. 4. Plaintiff seeks damages, the retention of his employment, an apology, and an order that permits him only to communicate with managers not involved in the conduct giving rise to his claims. Id. On March 17, 2023, Defendant filed this notice of removal, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. Dkt. No. 1 10. Defendant alleges that the Amended Complaint, read liberally, states a claim for copyright infringement in Count 3. Id.

12-13. Defendant also alleges that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, because the federal and state law claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. Id.