CONCEPCION v. CFG HEALTH SYSTEMS LLC et al

Filing 22

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 11/6/13. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUI3LICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ERIC CONCEPCION. as the
Administrator of the Estate of JULIO
CONCEPCION, deceased, and
individually.

:

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPINION
Civil Action No, 2:13-cv-02081 (DMC)(JI3C)

Plaintiff.

CFG hEALTH SYSTEMS LLC, SYED
RI/VI MD LIONLI ANICEFIO
M.D.. Nurse SYLVIA TERRY. Nurse
KEViN 0. KELLY, Nurse CYNTHIA
RICHARDSON. Nurse SABINE
PIERRE-PAUL, ESSEX COUN’l Y
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
and “JOHN DOE I-X” and “JANE ROE I
—X” (said names being fictitious and
presently unknown),
Defendants.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the IViotion to Remand by Plaintiff Eric
Concepcion (“Plaintiff’) and the Motion to Amend Complaint and Second Motion to Reman
d by
Plaintiff. Pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P 78. no oral argument was heard. Based on the follow
ing and
for the reasons expressed herein. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is denied and Plainti
ffs Motion
to Amend Complaint and Second Motion to Remand are granted.

1

L

BACKGROUND’
Plaintiff originally filed his Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey on Septem
ber

23, 2011. Plaintiff amended his complaint twice in state court. Defendants
CFG Health Systems,
LLC (‘CFG”), Lionel Anicette, Syed M. Rizvi, Sylvia Terry, Kevin Kelly, Sabine
Pierre Paul,
and Cynthia Richardson were not parties to this action until they were served with
Plaintiffs
Second Amended Complaint on March Ii, 201 3 2 Defendants CFG, Terry, Kelly,
and
Richardson removed the case to this Court on April 3, 2013 due to Plaintiffs
inclusion of claims
alleging violations of his Constitutional rights and his claims alleging violati
ons of 42 TJ.S.C.
1981, 1983, and 1201. 18 U.S.C.

§

§

3626, and Title VII.

On April 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6), arguin
g that
the case should be remanded because i) the overwhelming majority’ of the Compl
aint is based on
state law claims: ii) the

Superior

Court of New Jersey has already heard motions and held

conferences with the parties: and ii) Defendants cannot show why the case must
be heard in
Federal Court. Defendants CFG, Anicette, Rizvi, Terry, Kelly, and Richardson
tiled an
Opposition on Api-il 30, 2013 (ECF No. 8), arguing that the case should stay in
this Court due to
the federal claims in the Complaint. On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion to
Amend Complaint and Second Motion to Remand (ECF No. 15), seeking to
amend the
Complaint to remove all federal claims and to remand the case to state court. Plainti
ff also filed
an Amended Complaint (‘Compl.,” ECF No. 15, Ex. A). Defendants CEO, Anicet
te. Rizvi.
Terry, Kelly. and Richardson filed an Opposition on September 9, 2013 (“Def.s
Oppn” EC’F
No. 1 6) and Defendant Essex County Department of Corrections filed an Oppos
ition on
September 20, 2013 (ECF No. 17). These Defendants argue that the case should stay
in this

2

The facts from this section are taken from the parties’ pleadings.
However, according to these Defendants, they were served improperly.

2

Court because Plaintiffs New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”) claim
is based on alleged
violations of federal law and because Plaintiff has acted with bad faith
in trying to remand the
case. Plaintiff filed a Reply on September 26, 3013 (ECF No. 18).
II.

STAN1)ARD OF REVIEW
A. Motion to Amend Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend
its pleading

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Leave to
amend is to be freely
granted unless there is a reason for denial, ‘such as 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 amend
ment. futilit of
amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis. 371 U.S. 178, 182, (l962) see also
Arthur v. Maersk. 434
F.3d 196, 204 (3d. Cir, 2006) (‘Arnong the factors that may justify denial
of leave to amend are
undue delay, bad faith, and futility.”). “Where an amended pleading would
be futile. that alone is
sufficient ground to deny leave to amend.” Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170,
181 (3d. Cir. 2007).
“Futility’ of amendment is shown when the claim or defense is not accom
panied by a showing
oiplausibilitv sufficient to present a triable issue.” Harrison
jjflç)i’tei’S, 133 F.R.D. 463. 46$ (D.N.J. 1990).
B. Motions to Remand

In an action removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1441, the removing
party bears
the burden of showing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Samue
l-Bassett v. KIA
Motors Am.. Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cii’. 2004); Boyer v. Snap-On
Tools Corp., 913 F.2d
1 08. 1 1 1 (3d Cir. 1990). The removal statute is strictly construed against
removal and all doubts
ale to be icsohed in taoi of remand Entiekin v Fishei Scientific inc

146 1 Supp 2d 594

604 (3d Cir. 2001); Batoffv. State Farm

Ins.

Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851 (3d Cir. 1992); Steel Valley

Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006. 1010 (3d Cir.
1987), For removal to be
proper. ‘a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of
the United States must be an
elLment and an essential one, of the plaintd.1’s cause of action
105 F. Supp. 700. 705 (D.N.J. 1952)(quotingGullvv. First National Bank,
299 U.S. 109, 112
(1936)). Under the well-pleaded complaint” rule, a plaintiff is ordinarily
entitled to remain in
state court so long as its complaint does not, on its face, affirmatively
allege a federal claim. ge
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003).
ill,

DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Amend Complaint
Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint in order to remove the federal claims
. This

Court

finds that Defendants have not set forth any reasons that justify denying Plainti
ffs Motion

to Amend, such as bad faith, undue delay, futility, or prejudice to Defendants.
3 Therefore.
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint is granted.
B. Motions to Remand
1) First Motion to Remand
Plaintiff’s first Motion to Remand was filed before Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint was filed. Because this Court is granting Plaintiffs Motion to Amend
Complaint, and
because Plaintiff has filed a Second Motion to Remand that is specific to
Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs first Motion to Remand is no longer relevant. Accord
ingly, Plaintiff’s first
Motion to Remand is denied.

The vast majority of both Oppositions to Plaintifis Motion to Amend Compl
aint and Second Motion to Remand
focus on why remand should not be granted and not why leave to amend should
not be granted.

4

2) Second Motion to Remand
In his Second Motion to Remand, Plaintiff argues that this case should
be remanded to
state court because the Amended Complaint does not

contain

any federal claims. Defendants.

however, argue that this case should stay in federal court because Plainti
lis NJCRA claim is
based on violations of federal law. To support this proposition, Defend
ants focus on the language
in N,J.S.A.

§

l0:6-2d. which states that:

Any person who has been deprived of any substantive due proces
s or equal
protection rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution
or laws of
the United States, or any substantive rights, privileges or immunities
secured by the
Constitution or laws of this State, or whose exercise or enjoyment
of those
substantive rights
may bring a civil action for damages and for injunctive or
other appropriate relief.
.

.

.

Defendants also cite Trafton v. City of Woodbury, 799 F.Supp.2d 417.
443 (DNJ.
2011). where the court stated that “[t]his district has repeatedly interpreted
NJCRA analogously
to

§ 1 983.” However, while the NJCRA may be

interpreted in the same manner as

§

1983, case

law in this district shows that claims under the NJCRA that allege violati
ons of state
constitutional rights should be heard in state court, See D.D. v. Univ. of
Med. & Dentistry of
New Jersey, No. 11-7475. 2012 WL 3835833, at

*

I (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2012) (“Turning

.

to [the

defendant’sj claim that [the case should be remanded beeausej the NJCRA
implicitly involves
the resolution of federal law, the Court finds this argument specious.”) Ortiz
v, Univ. of
Dentistr of New Jersey, No. 08-2669. 2009 WL 737046. at

*

10 (D.N.J. Mar. 1 8. 2009). In

Ortiz, the court ultimately denied the plaintiffs motion to remand because
the p1aiititt s N.JCRA
claim “necessarily raise[d] a federal issue.” 2009 WL 3835833, at *7, Howev
er, in that case, the
plaintiffs NJCRA claim alleged violations of both the New Jersey Consti
tution and the United
States Constitution. Id. at *5 Thus, the court stated the following:

A plaintiff contemplating an action under the NJCRA has a choice
to make. If she
alleges violations of her federal constitutional rights, the case
is identical to a §
1 983 action and may be removed to federal court. If she wishes
to remain in state
court, she may choose to plead only violati
on of her state constitutional rights under
NJCRA.
Id. at

*

1 0. Further, this district subsequently stated that “Ortiz presented
the unique circumstance

of a statutory state law claim requiring the necessary resolution
of a substantial and disputed
question of federal law.” Vitellaro v. Mayor & Twp. Council
of Twp. of Hanover. No. 09-3310.
2009 \ 1 5204771 at 4 (D N I Dcc 23 2009) In ViicHaro
thc court iound that
applicable because the plaintiff “pleaded alleged violations of
her

stale,

Qrtiz

was not

not federal,

constitutional rights” in her NJCRA claim. Id. The court also
rejected the defendant’s argument
that “despite the absence of a federal claim, and despite [p]laintiffs
choice

to

pursue only her

remedies under the state constitution, the claim is really federal
because of New Jersey common
law precedent.”

14.

The present case is analogous to Vitellaro and distinguishable from
Ortiz because
PlaintifPs NJCRA claim in the Amended Complaint alleges violati
ons of Plaintiff’s stale
constitutional rights (Compl.
NJCRA claim
to

in

¶ 66).

Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiffs inclusion of an

the Amended Complaint does not warrant denial of Plaintiff’s Second
Motion

Remand.
Defindants further argue that Plaintiffs Second Motion to Reman
d should be denied for

reasons of “undue delay, bad faith and dilatory motive” (Def.’
s
Defendants have not set forth

any

Opp’n at 5). However,

facts to convince this Court that Plaintiff has acted with bad

faith. For example, Defendants make several complaints about
procedural decisions made by the
state court that are irrelevant to the instant Motion. Further. while
Defendants

argue

that this case

does not need to be remanded for the sake of judicial economy
because no discovery has been

6

conducted in state court, Defendants have not shown that there is a compe
lling reason as to why
this case needs to remain in federal court. See Alicea v. Outback Steakh
ouse, No. 1 0-4702, 201 1
WI. 1675036, at *5 (D.N.J. May 3, 2011) report and recommendatio
n adopted, No, 10-4702.
2011 WL 2444235 (D.NJ. June 9. 2011) (“[W]hen federal claims are no
longer part of a case. a
district court should usually decline to exercise its jurisdiction to hear supple
mental claims
absent extraordinary circumstances:’). Accordingly, Plainti if’ s Second Motion
to Remand is
granted.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs first Motion to Remand is denied and
Plaintiffs

Motion to Amend Complaint and Second Motion to Remand are granted. An
appropriate order
follows this Opinion.

Date:
Original:
cc:

November, 2013
Clerks Office
Hon. James B. Clark U.S.M.J.
All Counsel of Record
File

7