G.T. v. Castillo, M.D.

Background

Elizabeth Reyes sued individually and as the mother and natural guardian of her daughter, G.T. The complaint alleged that Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, BronxCare Health System, Saeed Oraee, M.D., Woodlawn Medical Associates, P.C., Mrudula Premkumar, M.D., Jing Ja Yoon, M.D., and Wilfrido Castillo, M.D., failed to provide timely and proper medical care. The alleged injuries to G.T. included cerebral palsy and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. The claims included medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and loss of services under New York law.

The case began in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. On June 17, 2022, the United States removed it to federal court under statutes concerning claims against employees of the United States Public Health Service. The United States argued that Castillo was such an employee acting within the scope of his employment. In a December 21, 2022 order, the court substituted the United States for Castillo and dismissed the claims against the United States for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that Plaintiffs had not satisfied the Federal Tort Claims Act’s six-month administrative exhaustion requirement before filing their state-court complaint.

Plaintiffs then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to remand the case against the remaining defendants to state court. Those defendants had not appeared and did not oppose the motion.

Analysis

The court explained that a federal court must remand a case if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute. The United States’ notice of removal relied only on the federal statutes concerning Castillo and did not assert diversity jurisdiction. The notice was never amended to add diversity jurisdiction, and no party had asserted that basis for federal jurisdiction.

The court also found that the record did not conclusively establish diversity jurisdiction. The complaint generally did not allege the parties’ citizenship. The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity purposes. The record indicated that the parties appeared to reside in New York, and the complaint identified Woodlawn Medical Associates, P.C. as organized under New York law. The court also noted that Plaintiffs asserted that they and all Defendants were New York domiciliaries. These facts did not provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction and might instead indicate that diversity was absent.

Because the removal notice did not invoke diversity jurisdiction and the record did not establish another basis for federal jurisdiction after the United States was dismissed, the court concluded that remand was required. The court did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice or related claims.

Disposition

Judge Liman granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The Clerk was directed to remand the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, and to close Dkt. No. 22.