FALTAS-FOUAD v. ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, PASSAIC, N.J.
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 3/3/15. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SUZAN FALTAS-FOUAD, M.D.,
Civ.No. 2:14-5228 (WJM)
ST MARY’S HOSPITAL, PASSAIC, N.J.,
A New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation
EUNISE URENA, As Guardian and
Proposed Administratrix of the Estate of
Nativad Abreu ,
Civ.No. 2:14-06021 (WJM)
PRINCETON INSURANCE COMPANY;
ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, PASSAIC, N.J.,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on (1) Defendant St. Mary’s motion for
reconsideration of this Court’s remand order of January 20, 2015, and (2) Plaintiff FaltasFouad’s request for fees and expenses. For the foregoing reasons, both motions are
Plaintiffs in this case initially filed their complaints against St. Mary’s in state court.
In August 2014, St. Mary’s removed both actions to federal court on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction. St. Mary’s asserted that federal question jurisdiction existed because
Plaintiffs sought to enforce contracts that St. Mary’s had rejected in a plan of reorganization
that the bankruptcy court confirmed in 2010. Plaintiffs filed timely remand motions, which
this Court granted in a January 20, 2015 Opinion and Order. In granting Plaintiffs’ remand
motions, the Court noted that it possessed “related-to” jurisdiction under the bankruptcy
code because the lawsuit could have a conceivable effect on St. Mary’s confirmed plan or
reorganization. However, the Court concluded that it must remand the cases pursuant to
the doctrine of mandatory abstention because (1) the remand motions were timely; (2) the
proceedings were based upon state law claims or state law causes of action; (3) the
proceedings did not “arise in” title 11 or “arise under” title 11; (4) the action could not have
been commenced in a federal court absent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334; and (5) the
actions could be timely adjudicated in state court.
St. Mary’s now moves for
reconsideration of the Court’s January 20, 2015 remand order.
“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise…” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (emphasis added). Moreover,
“any decision to abstain [under the doctrine of mandatory abstention] is not reviewable by
appeal or otherwise…” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d) (emphasis added). Therefore, a court cannot
review its remand order on a motion for reconsideration once a certified copy of the remand
order is mailed to state court. See, e.g., Agnostini v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 729 F.3d 350
(3d Cir. 2013) citing Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless, 50 F.3d 217, 225 (3d Cir.
1995)). Here, the Court mailed a certified copy of the remand order on January 21, 2015,
but St. Mary’s did not file its motion for reconsideration until February 4, 2015. The Court
therefore does not possess jurisdiction to reconsider its remand order. Consequently, St.
Mary’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiff Faltas-Fouad has requested that this Court award her expenses and
attorney’s fees she incurred by opposing St. Mary’s motion for reconsideration. FaltasFouad did not request this relief by way of a formal motion or separate application. Instead,
she devoted two sentences to the request in her opposition to the motion for
reconsideration. Those short statements provide little in the way of explaining why the
Court should grant Faltas-Fouad’s relief. Moreover, she did not indicate which statute or
rule entitles her to fees and expenses. 1 The Court is therefore uncertain as to what standard
For example, Faltas-Fouad does not indicate whether she asserts a right to fees and expenses
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), or some other rule or statute.
it would apply when determining whether Faltas-Fouad’s request is legitimate. In short,
Faltas-Fouad’s claim to fees and expenses is too vague for this Court to meaningfully
assess. Her request for fees and expenses is DENIED.
For the reasons stated above, St. Mary’s motion for reconsideration and Faltas-Fouad’s
request for fees and expenses are both DENIED. An appropriate order accompanies this
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: March 3, 2015
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?