York v. Catholic Guardian
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-05972
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In York v. Holy Name of Mary, Judge Caproni closed the district-court case after transferring it to bankruptcy court and terminated York’s remand motion.
Melanie York and the defendants—Holy Name of Mary Catholic School, Catholic Guardians, City of New York, and New York Office of Child and Family Services—were affected because the district court closed its case and directed further applications to the Bankruptcy Court.
What happened
In Melanie York v. Holy Name of Mary Catholic School, York asked the district court to return her state-court case to New York Supreme Court, award fees and costs, and grant other relief. The motion concerned a case removed to federal court and then transferred to the bankruptcy court.
The district court did not decide whether the case should be remanded, whether federal jurisdiction existed, or whether York should receive fees. Instead, the court stated that the case had been transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York under an earlier order.
The district court closed its case, directed that all applications be made to the Bankruptcy Court, and instructed the clerk to terminate the open motion at Docket 9. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order on August 14, 2023.
The detailed version
- York v. Catholic Guardian · No. 1:23-cv-05972
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 14, 2023
Background
Melanie York filed a motion asking the district court to remand, or return, the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. Her motion also sought attorneys’ fees and costs. The supporting memorandum argued that the removal to federal court was improper because the case involved state-law claims and was not sufficiently related to the bankruptcy case of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre. It also argued that the removing defendant had not provided the notices required by the removal statute.
Court’s Action
The order did not resolve those arguments. It stated that, under the district court’s August 4, 2023 order, the case had been transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The order further stated that the case before the district court was closed and that all applications had to be made to the Bankruptcy Court.
The clerk was directed to terminate the open motion at Docket 9. The order therefore disposed of the pending district-court motion administratively after the transfer; it did not state that the motion to remand was granted or denied, and it did not reach the merits of the jurisdictional or procedural arguments.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.