Kakar Kurtz v. Dr. Marie Lupica
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-03401
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kakar Kurtz v. Lupica, Judge Engelmayer denied defendants’ remand motion, retaining jurisdiction over the remaining medical-malpractice claim for trial.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, particularly the remaining medical-malpractice claim, which will proceed to trial in federal court rather than being remanded to New York state court.
What happened
In Kakar Kurtz v. Dr. Marie Lupica, the defendants asked the federal court to stop handling the case and send it back to New York state court. A prior decision had eliminated the remaining federal claim, leaving the plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice claim.
The court decided to keep handling that state-law claim. It said the case had involved extensive discovery and several major motions, discovery was complete, and the case was ready for trial. Sending it to state court would cause delay and reduce the benefit of the court’s familiarity with the case.
Judge Paul Engelmayer denied the defendants’ motion and ordered that the case proceed to trial in federal court. The court planned to begin trial on July 10, 2023, or July 17, 2023, depending on the availability of another scheduled criminal trial, and directed counsel to remain available for three weeks.
The detailed version
- Kakar Kurtz v. Dr. Marie Lupica · No. 1:20-cv-03401
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 26, 2023
Background
The court received a motion in limine from Dr. Marie Lupica and New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill-Cornell Medical Center. The defendants asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand the case to the Supreme Court of New York County. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to decide related state-law claims after the federal claims have been resolved.
The court stated that its summary decision had eliminated the remaining federal claim. The plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice claim against the defendants remained. The opinion does not describe the substance of the eliminated federal claim or explain the earlier summary decision in detail.
Court’s Reasoning
The court recognized that it had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving state-law claim even though no federal claim remained. It concluded that keeping the claim would serve judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.
The court emphasized that it had already decided multiple dispositive motions, including motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. It had also overseen extensive discovery, which was complete. Because the court had invested substantial time and effort in the case, and because the case was ready for a prompt trial, the court found that remanding the case would cause needless delay and work against judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. The court also stated that its familiarity with the case put it in the best position to preside over the trial and make decisions about the relevance of witnesses and exhibits.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion. The case would proceed to trial in federal court. The court intended to begin trial on Monday, July 10, 2023, unless another criminal trial prevented that date, in which case trial would begin on Monday, July 17, 2023. Counsel were directed to remain available during the three-week period beginning July 10, 2023. The court also stated that it would schedule a final pretrial conference to address the pending motions in limine, the joint pretrial order, and trial logistics.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.