The Estate of Fernando Reyes v. Bronx Harbor Health Care Complex, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-00031
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Estate of Fernando Reyes v. Bronx Harbor, Judge Koeltl’s provided text is a defense request for a stay, not a court ruling.
The estate, Bronx Harbor Health Care Complex, Inc., and the court proceedings are affected because the defendant requested a stay, postponement of remand consideration, or additional time to respond; the provided text does not show a ruling.
What happened
The provided text concerns The Estate of Fernando Reyes v. Bronx Harbor Health Care Complex, Inc. The defendant’s lawyer asked the court to pause the case while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered related appeals.
The defendant said it expected to seek dismissal based on the proposed estate representative’s lack of capacity and COVID-19 immunity laws. It also argued that the case was properly removed to federal court under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and other federal-jurisdiction theories, while anticipating that the estate would seek to return the case to state court.
The provided text does not contain a ruling on the requested stay, dismissal, remand, or deadline extension. Judge Koeltl is identified as the judge, but no judicial disposition appears in the text.
The detailed version
- The Estate of Fernando Reyes v. Bronx Harbor Health Care Complex, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00031
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 19, 2023
What the document is
The provided text is a January 10, 2023 letter from counsel for Bronx Harbor Health Care Complex, Inc., doing business as Kings Harbor Multicare Center. It asks the court to stay the case and postpone anticipated motion practice and any consideration of remand until the Second Circuit decides related appeals. The supplied case metadata lists January 19, 2023 as the filing date.
The defendant’s proposed arguments
The defendant said it anticipated filing a pre-answer motion to dismiss. It asserted that the proposed administrator lacked standing and capacity to prosecute the action on behalf of the decedent’s estate because the proposed administrator had not been properly appointed. The letter also identified immunity defenses under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act.
The defendant also argued that removal to federal court was proper because the complaint concerned injuries allegedly related to COVID-19 countermeasures. It identified three jurisdictional theories: complete preemption under the PREP Act, federal-question jurisdiction based on a substantial and disputed federal issue, and jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. The letter said the Second Circuit was considering related jurisdictional questions in appeals including Leroy, Rivera-Zayas, and Solomon.
Requested relief and disposition
The defendant asked Judge Koeltl to stay motion practice and hold consideration of remand in abeyance until the Second Circuit resolved the related appeals. Alternatively, it asked for more time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The provided text contains no order or other judicial ruling, so it does not show whether Judge Koeltl granted, denied, or otherwise decided any request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.