Moore et al v. Keller et al
DECISION & ORDER: The Court finds that original jurisdiction exists over the federal claim and supplemental jurisdiction is proper over the state law claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs' # 10 Motion to Remand to State Court is DENIED and all claims will remain in Federal Court. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 8/31/2017. (jmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------MICHAEL MOORE; LISE Y. MOORE;
SABRIA MOORE; and JALIA GRAHAM,
MICHAEL KELLER; PAUL DAUGHERTY;
MICHAEL JORGENSEN; JOSEPH NAPPO;
STEPHEN MAUSER; and JULIE SUNSER,
SIDNEY P. COMINSKY, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1500 State Tower Building
Syracuse, NY 13202
SIDNEY P. COMINSKY, ESQ.
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorney for Defendants
615 Erie Boulevard West
Syracuse, NY 13204
AIMEE M. PAQUETTE, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiffs Michael Moore, Lise Y. Moore, Sabria Moore, and Jalia Graham brought
suit against defendants Michael Keller, Paul Daugherty, Michael Jorgensen, Joseph Nappo,
Stephen Mauser, and Julie Sunser in New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County.
The Complaint alleges civil rights and constitutional violations as well as state common law
claims arising out of incidents that occurred at the State University of New York, Upstate
University Hospital in Syracuse, New York.
Defendants removed the suit to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs now move to remand all claims, both federal and state. Defendants opposed and
plaintiffs replied. Oral argument was heard today, August 30, 2017, in Utica, New York.
Decision was reserved.
Once a case has been properly removed, a federal court must generally entertain
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Riano v. Town of Schroeppel ex rel. Town
Bd. of Town of Schroeppel, No. 5:13-CV-352, 2013 W L 5702263, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 18,
2013) (D'Agostino, J.) (citing Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716 (1996)).
Defendants' removal was proper because the Complaint raises questions of federal law,
specifically violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs contend remand of all claims is
nevertheless appropriate because the state law claims raise novel or complex issues of state
law relating to New York Mental Hygiene Law, they substantially predominate over the
federal claim, and judicial economy would be served by remand and consolidation of
plaintiffs' various pending state court lawsuits.
There is no authority to remand plaintiffs' federal claim at this stage. There is
substantial precedent in the Second Circuit which holds that neither the removal statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1441, nor the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, authorizes a
federal court to remand claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Riano, 2013 WL
5702263, at *7 (collecting cases). Accordingly, there is "an obligation to exercise jurisdiction
over federal claims" properly presented here. Id. (quotations omitted). The Section 1983
claim cannot be remanded for this reason.
The next inquiry turns to whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs' state law claims is appropriate. See Riano, 2013 W L 5702263, at *7. The state law
claims are related to the federal claim such that they form part of the same case or
controversy, satisfying the first requirement of supplemental jurisdiction. Consideration of the
factors laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) further support the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction in this matter. The state law claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state
law, they do not substantially predominate over the federal claim,1 the federal claim still
remains, and there are no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction. See § 1367(c).
Original jurisdiction exists over the federal claim and supplemental jurisdiction is
proper over the state law claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to remand will be denied and
all claims will remain here.2
Therefore, it is
Plaintiffs' motion to remand is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
While plaintiffs may have only referenced 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the first cause of action, several
other causes of action including the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, either sound in a federal question,
appear to be federal claims artfully pled as state law claims, or are claims in which federal courts
routinely apply the same standard to the state law claim as they would the federal law claim.
Furthermore, these counts do not allege whether they are brought under New York or federal law.
Should plaintiffs elect to voluntarily dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim on the merits, with
prejudice, they would be free to make a renewed motion to remand at that time.
Dated: August 31, 2017
Utica, New York.
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?