Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 12, 2022

Glover v. United States of America

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:18-cv-10504
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Glover v. United States, Judge Halpern dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice because they were not removed from state court and could not be remanded.

Who this affects

Whitney Glover’s remaining state-law claims against St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital were dismissed without prejudice; the order also directed the Clerk to close the case.

What happened

In Glover v. United States of America, the court addressed the claims that remained after Whitney Glover settled her claims against the United States. Those remaining claims were state-law claims against St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital.

Glover asked the court to send the claims against St. Luke’s back to state court. The court explained that it could not remand a case that had not originally been removed from state court. The earlier state-court proceeding had been discontinued before Glover filed this federal case.

Judge Halpern dismissed the remaining claims against St. Luke’s without prejudice because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Glover v. United States of America · No. 7:18-cv-10504
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Jan. 12, 2022

Background

Whitney Glover sued the United States and St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital. On January 10, 2022, the court entered an infant-compromise order concerning Glover’s settlement with the United States and dismissed her claims against the United States with prejudice. The court stated that the only remaining claims were state-law claims against St. Luke’s.

Glover asked the court to remand—that is, send back to state court—the claims against St. Luke’s under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court had previously noted that the related proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, had been discontinued before Glover independently filed this federal action. It directed Glover either to explain how remand was legally possible or to state that the claims should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruling

The court concluded that it could not remand a case that had not been removed from state court. Because the state proceeding had been discontinued before this federal action was filed, the federal case did not originate through removal. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court dismissed the remaining claims against St. Luke’s without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the merits of the state-law claims against St. Luke’s.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.