CONCEPCION v. CFG HEALTH SYSTEMS LLC et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION fld. Signed by Magistrate Judge James B. Clark on 10/28/13. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ERIC CONCEPCION,
Plaintiff,
v.
CFG HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 13-2081 (DMC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CLARK, Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Eric Concepcion’s (“Plaintiff”) motion
for leave to amend the complaint [Docket Entry No. 15] to remove those causes of action arising
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1988, to substitute causes of action arising under the New
Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 and to remand this action to the State Court. Defendants
CFG Health Systems, LLC, Syed Rizvi, MD, Sylvia Terry, RN, Kevin Kelly, APN, Cynthia
Richardson, CMA, and Dr. Lionel Anicette (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose Plaintiff’s motion
in its entirety. [Docket Entry No. 16]. The Court has fully reviewed and considered all arguments
made in support of, and in opposition to, Plaintiff’s motion. The Court considers Plaintiff’s
motion without oral argument pursuant to L.CIV.R. 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth more fully
below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and it is RECOMMENDED that this action be
remanded.
I.
Background and Procedural History
This case involves civil rights violations, as well as claims for medical malpractice and
negligence in connection with the death of one Julio Concepcion (the “decedent”), an inmate of the
Essex County Department of Corrections. (See Plaintiff’s Brief in Support at 2; Docket Entry No.
15). Plaintiff, as administrator of the decedent’s estate, first filed this action in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Essex County Vicinage on September 23, 2011. After some discovery was
conducted, Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint against the instant Defendants.
On April 3, 2013, Defendants removed the action to this Court on federal question jurisdiction.
[Docket Entry No. 1]. Plaintiff moved to remand [Docket Entry No. 6]. That motion is still
currently pending. Subsequent to a status telephone conference with the Honorable Mark Falk,
U.S.M.J. on July 23, 2013, (the “July 23rd conference”) Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend
the complaint and a second motion to remand this case to state court.
II.
Arguments
Plaintiff states that it was at the July 23rd conference when it was first suggested that
Plaintiff substitute state civil rights claims for federal ones in order to be remanded back to state
court. (Pltf. Br. Supp. at ¶¶9-11). Plaintiff notes that the civil rights laws of New Jersey mirror the
federal laws and that, therefore “the amended complaint does not add any new causes of actions
(sic) against any of the defendants[.]” (Id. at ¶17). Plaintiffs claim that because the amended
complaint “merely clarifies with greater specificity which defendant is being sued under what
theory, there is no prejudice against the defendants.” (Id.) As such, Plaintiff requests that this
Court grant the motion to amend.
Plaintiff further requests that this Court remand this action back to state court, as no
federal claims would remain in the amended complaint. (Id. at ¶¶19, 22). Plaintiff points to 28
U.S.C. §1337(c)(3) which states that a district court may decline jurisdiction over a claim if “the
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” (Id. at ¶20, citing
-2-
Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, PA, 983 F.2d 1277, 1284 (3d Cir. 1993). Plaintiff
argues that this case is in the early stages, with new defendants having recently been added, and
that the removal of the federal claims warrants remand to the state court.
Defendants’ opposition is twofold. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion to
amend should be denied for “undue delay, bad faith [and] dilatory motive[.]” (Defendants’ Brief in
Opposition at 2; Docket Entry No. 16). Second, Defendants submit that the New Jersey Civil
Rights Act “provides for original jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims in [federal court]” and as such,
this action need not be remanded to state court. (Id. at 2).
Turning to Defendants’ first argument, Defendants note that Plaintiff only sought to join
them to this case after Plaintiff had settled with other defendants at the state level. (Id. at 5).
Defendants argue that, through his proposed amendment, Plaintiff is “attempting to manipulate the
forum in this matter” and that it “would be patently unfair to permit Plaintiff to manipulate the
forum after a timely and appropriate removal by [Defendants].” (Id. at 7). Defendants argue that
to have this action remanded to state court, where eighteen months of litigation have already
ensued, would “not equate to the fairness and justice to which these Defendants are entitled” as
“Defendants have never appeared before the state court[.]” (Id. at 6).1
Defendants alternatively argue that this Court would not be stripped of jurisdiction, as “the
New Jersey Civil Rights Act provides for redress of both state and federal laws while providing
that a complaint ‘may’ be brought in the Superior Court.” (Id. at 3). Further, Defendants submit
that “the Act is nearly identical to and analogous to its federal counterpart, 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and
that “there is no reason to permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint simply to paint his claims with a
‘state law’ brush and avoid having this matter heard in federal court following the timely and
1
The Court notes that Defendants have raised the issue of improper service and have implicitly suggested improper
joinder as well. (See Id. at 6). The Court declines to address these issues, as they are not presently before the Court.
-3-
proper removal by these Defendants.” (Id. at 5). As such, Defendants request that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s reply argues that amendment and remand is proper as “the gravamen of the
claims are state claims for medical malpractice and negligence.” (Plaintiff’s Brief in Reply at ¶4;
Docket Entry No. 18). Plaintiff reiterates that during the July 23rd conference, the Court seemed
willing to permit Plaintiff to substitute the state civil rights laws for the federal ones, and indeed,
suggested the switch. (Id. at ¶9). Plaintiff states that the action taken on the Court’s suggestion
“can hardly be said to be acting in bad faith or in a dilatory manner or attempting to unduly delay
this matter.” (Id. at ¶10). Plaintiff also argues that the Defendants were properly added “with
leave of the New Jersey State Court…after lengthy discovery had occurred in the matter.” (Id. at
¶16). Lastly, Plaintiff refutes Defendants’ argument that this Court would continue to retain
jurisdiction over the amended complaint by arguing that Defendants’ case law is inapposite in that
it “does not stand for the proposition that a Federal Court must keep jurisdiction over a State Law
claim” but instead “merely instructions how a state law claim must be analyzed in Federal Court.”
(Id. at ¶21).
III.
Analysis
a. Motion to Amend
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.15(a)(2), leave to amend the pleadings is generally granted freely.
See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir. 2000).
Nevertheless, the Court may deny a motion to amend where there is “undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
-4-
amendment, [or] futility of the amendment.” Id. However, where there is an absence of undue
delay, bad faith, prejudice or futility, a motion for leave to amend a pleading should be liberally
granted. Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004).
The Court finds Plaintiff’s amendment to be proper. Defendants do not refute Plaintiff’s
characterization of the July 23rd conference with the Court and do not contest that it was the Court
which suggested substituting state law causes of action for federal ones. Indeed, Defendants do
not argue that the amendment itself is substantively improper. Defendants’ suggested ancillary
arguments that they were improperly served or improperly added as Defendants are not at issue
before this Court. Defendants were added with leave of the state court and have answered
Plaintiff’s complaint. In this regard, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s lone amendment to substitute
the New Jersey Civil Rights Act for the claims plead pursuant to the Constitution has not been
brought with undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive. The amendment does nothing to change
the essential substance of Plaintiff’s allegations and as such, causes no prejudice to Defendants.
In addition, and as explained more fully below, the Court is additionally satisfied that the essential
effect of amendment – remand – likewise would not prejudice Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion is GRANTED IN PART.
b. Motion to Remand
Title 28, § 1441(a) of the United States Code permits a defendant to remove a civil action
in state court to a federal court where the action could have been filed originally; that is, where the
federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Section 1446 outlines the procedures for removal, and Section 1447
outlines the procedures following removal. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446, 1447. Defects in removal may
-5-
be procedural or jurisdictional. Jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time. Caterpillar Inc.
v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 69 (1996). Indeed, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that
the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c).
“[T]he party asserting federal jurisdiction in a removal case bears the burden of showing, at
all stages of the litigation, that the case is properly before the federal court.”
Frederico v. Home
Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Brown v. Jevic, 575 F.3d 322, 326 (3d Cir.
2009). Removal statutes “are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be
resolved in favor of remand.” Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990)
(citing Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir.1987)).
Prior to filing the instant motion, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action under the
initial complaint. As the Court has granted that part of Plaintiff’s motion seeking to amend the
Complaint, this particular motion is moot for the reasons set forth herein. As such, Plaintiffs first
motion to remand is DENIED.
Turning to the instant motion, the Court shall recommend to the District Court that this
action be remanded to state court. The Court finds Defendants’ argument for dual jurisdiction
unpersuasive and, as Plaintiff correctly notes, Defendants’ case law shows that the New Jersey
Civil Rights Act and constitutional claims are to be analyzed the same; not that the Court shall
retain jurisdiction over non-federal causes of action. Likewise, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
moved to amend and remand in compliance with the federal and local civil rules and has not done
so in bad faith. Thus, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff is attempting to
“forum shop.” As Plaintiff notes, and Defendants acknowledge, this action has been proceeding
-6-
for the past eighteen (18) months in state court. No discovery has been conducted with respect to
Defendants and no depositions have been taken. (Defts.’ Br. Opp. at 6). Lastly, and most
important, by virtue of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, no federal claims remain and therefore the
Court is confident that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction.2 As such, the Court is
recommending that this action be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County
Vicinage.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED IN PART and
it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the District Court remand this action. An appropriate
Order and Recommendation shall follow this Opinion.
Dated: October 28, 2013
s/ James B. Clark, III
HONORABLE JAMES B. CLARK, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
The Court notes that neither party has addressed whether diversity jurisdiction is present in this matter. Indeed,
Defendants originally removed this matter on the basis of federal question jurisdiction alone. (See Docket Entry No. 1
at ¶6). As such, the Court shall not engage in an analysis of diversity jurisdiction and is therefore satisfied that subject
matter jurisdiction does not exist in this case by way of same.
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?