Scott v. United Odd Fellow and Rebekah Home d/b/a Rebekah Rehab and Extended…

Background

The provided text is a letter-motion from Rebekah Home d/b/a Rebekah Rehab and Extended Care Center, through its counsel, asking for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to Scott’s complaint. The letter states that the defendant removed the action to federal court because the complaint alleged injury connected to the administration of COVID-19 countermeasures.

The defendant asserted three possible bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction: complete preemption under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, a federal-law issue under the Supreme Court’s substantial-federal-question doctrine, and the federal-officer removal statute. The defendant asked the court to hold motion practice in abeyance while the Second Circuit considered related jurisdictional issues in two appeals. Alternatively, it asked for a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and for the answer deadline to be extended until after that motion was decided.

Arguments Described in the Letter

The defendant argued that the federal PREP Act provided immunity from suit and liability because the claims allegedly arose from or related to covered COVID-19 countermeasures. It also argued that New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act barred the claims and that the plaintiff lacked standing because the action was allegedly brought by a “Proposed Administrator,” rather than a duly appointed personal representative. The provided text does not show the plaintiff’s response or a ruling on any of these arguments.

The letter stated that the original answer deadline had expired on August 26, 2022, and that the request was the defendant’s first request for an extension. It also stated that the defendant’s counsel had learned on October 5, 2022, that plaintiff’s counsel anticipated filing a motion to remand.

Ruling and Effect

The court enlarged the time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until November 7, 2022. The text provided does not clearly state whether the court granted the separate request to stay motion practice, set a briefing schedule, or rule on the proposed jurisdictional and dismissal arguments. The order therefore addresses the response deadline, not the merits of the underlying claims.