Ranieri v. Providence Rest, Inc.
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:22-cv-01030
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ranieri v. Providence Rest, Judge Buchwald granted remand, finding removal of COVID-19 nursing-home claims improper.
The ruling affects Stephen Ranieri, as administrator of Florence Ranieri’s estate, and Providence Rest, Inc. It returned their case from federal court to the New York Supreme Court in Bronx County; the opinion did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Ranieri v. Providence Rest, Inc., Stephen Ranieri, administrator of Florence Ranieri’s estate, sued Providence Rest, Inc. over his mother’s COVID-19-related death at its nursing home. The complaint asserted New York state-law claims involving public-health violations, negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death.
Providence removed the case from New York state court to federal court. It argued that federal jurisdiction existed because the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act completely displaced the state claims, the claims raised an important federal issue, and Providence had acted under the direction of federal agencies. Ranieri asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
The court granted the motion to remand and directed that the case be returned to the New York Supreme Court in Bronx County. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald followed the unanimous decisions of other courts, which had found removal improper in similar COVID-19 cases.
The detailed version
- Ranieri v. Providence Rest, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01030
- Naomi Buchwald
- July 19, 2022
Background
Stephen Ranieri sued as administrator of the estate of his deceased mother, Florence Ranieri. He originally filed the case in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The complaint alleged that Providence Rest, Inc., which operated the nursing home where Florence Ranieri died after contracting COVID-19, failed to take appropriate precautions to prevent and limit the virus’s spread. The claims were based on New York’s Public Health Law and state common law, including negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death.
Removal and Remand Motions
Providence removed the case to federal court and asserted three grounds for federal jurisdiction. First, it argued that the claims were completely preempted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, a federal statute concerning certain claims related to public-health emergencies. Second, it argued that the complaint raised substantial federal issues under the federal-question jurisdiction doctrine described in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing. Third, it relied on the federal-officer removal statute, arguing that Providence acted under the direction of federal agencies when implementing COVID-19 protocols.
Ranieri moved to remand, arguing that the parties were not diverse, that the complaint asserted only state-law claims, and that none of Providence’s asserted grounds for removal applied. Providence opposed the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that several district courts within the Second Circuit had addressed whether cases involving COVID-19-related deaths or illnesses at health-care facilities could be removed to federal court. It described those courts’ conclusion as unanimous: removal in cases like this one was improper and remand was required. The court also cited decisions from several federal appellate courts that had reached the same conclusion.
The court stated that Providence had not provided a persuasive reason to depart from this body of authority. It adopted the reasoning explained in Shapnik v. Hebrew Home for Aged at Riverdale and Dupervil v. Alliance Health Operations, LLC without separately setting out a detailed analysis of each asserted removal ground in this opinion.
Disposition
The court granted Ranieri’s motion to remand. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 9 and to remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald did not decide the underlying negligence, public-health-law, gross-negligence, or wrongful-death claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.