The Estate of Juan Ortiz v. Archcare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care…
The Estate of Juan Ortiz v. Archcare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10385
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Estate of Juan Ortiz v. Archcare, Judge Furman ordered supplemental briefs on whether two Second Circuit decisions affect subject-matter jurisdiction.
The parties, who must submit supplemental briefs of no more than five pages by April 28, 2023.
What happened
In Estate of Juan Ortiz v. Archcare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, the court asked the parties to address two recent Second Circuit decisions.
The parties must submit briefs of no more than five pages by April 28, 2023. The briefs must explain whether those decisions affect the court’s power to hear this case and whether this complaint differs from the complaints in those cases in ways relevant to that question.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide subject-matter jurisdiction or any claim in this order; he ordered supplemental briefing.
The detailed version
- The Estate of Juan Ortiz v. Archcare at Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care… · No. 1:22-cv-10385
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 20, 2023
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs by April 28, 2023. Each brief may not exceed five pages.
The briefs must address the significance, if any, of two Second Circuit decisions issued on April 13, 2023: Rivera-Zayas v. Our Lady of Consolation Geriatric Care Center and Leroy v. Hume. The parties must also explain whether and how the complaint in this case differs from the complaints in those decisions, to the extent those differences matter to whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the case.
Disposition
This order does not decide whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction and does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims. It only requires supplemental briefing. The opinion text does not describe the claims in the complaint or the parties’ positions on jurisdiction.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.