Baez v. United States
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-01091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baez v. United States, Judge Schofield ordered the parties to address whether the court should keep the remaining state-law claims.
Everlidyz Baez and the non-government defendants—New York University Langone Medical Center, Drs. Barie Salmon, Aaron Hultgren, Gordon Wu, Hassan Mohamed, and Carly Ennis, P.A.—were required to address whether the federal court should retain the remaining state-law claims. The United States Veterans’ Administration Hospital was affected by the settlement of Baez’s claims against it.
What happened
In Baez v. United States, Everlidyz Baez sued the United States Veterans’ Administration Hospital in Manhattan and several non-government defendants. Her claims against the hospital relied on federal law, while her claims against the other defendants were based on state law.
Baez’s claims against the hospital settled, so the court no longer had its original federal jurisdiction over those claims. The parties asked the court to send the remaining state-law claims back to state court, but the court explained that it could not remand claims that had not been formally removed from state court.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by March 25, 2021, stating their positions on whether the court should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The order did not decide those claims.
The detailed version
- Baez v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-01091
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Everlidyz Baez’s original complaint named the United States Veterans’ Administration Hospital in Manhattan. The First Amended Complaint added New York University Langone Medical Center and Drs. Barie Salmon, Aaron Hultgren, Gordon Wu, Hassan Mohamed, and Carly Ennis, P.A. as non-government defendants.
The court’s original federal subject-matter jurisdiction was based on Baez’s claims against the VA Hospital under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The claims against the non-government defendants were state-law claims over which the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims alongside claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.
The parties represented that the non-government defendants had originally been defendants in a similar action in New York Supreme Court for New York County. Although those defendants described the case as having been removed to federal court, they had not filed the notice of removal required by federal law.
Effect of Settlement and Request for Remand
Baez’s claims against the VA Hospital settled on February 22, 2021. The settlement removed the basis for supplemental jurisdiction identified in the order. Baez and the non-government defendants asked the federal court to remand the remaining state-law claims to state court.
The court stated that it had no authority to remand those claims because they had not been removed from state court to the federal court. A remand sends a case that was removed from state court back to that court; the order explained that this procedure was unavailable here.
Order
The court did not decide the merits of the state-law claims or dismiss them. Instead, it ordered the parties, by March 25, 2021, to submit a joint letter under the judge’s Individual Rules stating their respective positions on whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Baez’s claims against the non-government defendants. The order was entered by Judge Lorna G. Schofield.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.