The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
23-CV-4789, 23-CV-4990,
23-CV-4991 (ARR)
In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed
From State Court NOT FOR ELECTRONIC
OR PRINT PUBLICATION
OPINION & ORDER
ROSS, United States District Judge:
Before me are motions to remand three actions brought under the New York Child Victims
Act, each alleging sexual abuse by individuals associated with defendants, a school, a parish,
churches, and other organizations related to the Diocese of Rockville Centre (the “Diocese”). The
Diocese is the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York, and defendants have removed these cases from state court,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, based on their connection to the Diocese’s bankruptcy proceeding.
Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ motions to remand each case back to its respective state court
principally on the grounds that the removal was designed to allow for an “efficient transfer” of the
case to the Southern District of New York pursuant to a motion filed by the Diocese in that district
under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), which authorizes the consolidation of personal injury tort and
wrongful death claims in the district court in which a debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending. The
Diocese’s § 157(b)(5) motion remains pending before Judge Schofield in the Southern District,1
and defendants have asked me to deny the motions or at least hold them in abeyance pending its
1 No. 23-CV-5751 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).
resolution, lest as “efficiency gains from removal . . . be lost.” Bilello v. Holy Trinity Diocesan
High School, No. 23-CV-4789 (ARR) (ST), ECF No. 10, at 5.
Because the cases covered by this order are three of approximately 220 Child Victims Act
cases brought against entities associated with the Diocese that were removed en masse to this
district, I write with the benefit of several decisions that have already issued remanding essentially
identical cases to state court. As persuasively discussed by Judge Brown in In re Child Victims Act
Cases Removed From State Court, No. 23-CV-5029 (GRB), 2023 WL 5123396, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Aug. 10, 2023), plaintiffs have already endured significant delays in pursuing their claims due to
the bankruptcy proceeding. Continued obstruction of state court actions denies plaintiffs their day
in court and makes it increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove their claims. Given the important
and urgent interests at stake, I find it prudent to issue a decision without further delay. I therefore
incorporate by reference Judge Gonzalez’s comprehensive recent opinion remanding ten Child
Victims Act Cases in In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed From State Court, No. 23-CV-4741
(HG), 2023 WL 5287067 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2023). For the reasons set forth in that opinion, I
find that I have “related to” jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims and that mandatory abstention
requires remand of the three cases before me.2 Id. at *5–8. I also find that remand is warranted
under the doctrines of permissive and equitable abstention. Id. at *8.
Finally, I reject defendants’ request to hold the remand motions in abeyance pending Judge
Schofield’s decision on the Diocese’s § 157(b)(5) motion. Defendants purport to have removed
the present cases for the sake of efficiency. I find defendants’ rationale puzzling. Section 157(b)(5)
2 Mandatory abstention is not permissible where § 1334 does not provide the sole basis for federal
jurisdiction. In Rivero v. St. John the Evangelist Catholic Parish, No. 23-CV-4991 (ARR) (SIL),
defendants invoke diversity jurisdiction in opposition to plaintiff’s motion. See ECF No. 11, at 2.
Because defendants did not invoke diversity jurisdiction in their notices of removal, that contention
is waived. In Re: Child Victims Act Cases, 2023 WL 5287067, at *6 n.5.
allows the transfer of cases pending in federal court and state court to the federal district court
where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending. See In re Pan Am. Corp., 16 F.3d 513, 516–17 (2d Cir.
1994). Defendants fail to explain how or why any efficiencies would be realized by a transfer of
these cases from one federal court to another as opposed to from state court to federal court.
Because I see no reason to hold these motions in abeyance and because mandatory
abstention requires the remand of the cases, plaintiffs’ motions are GRANTED. The following
cases are hereby REMANDED:
• Bilello v. Holy Trinity Diocesan High School, E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 23-CV-4789, Nassau
County Index No. 900099/2021
• Doe v. Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn, E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 23-CV-4990, Nassau
County Index No. 518736/2021
• Rivero v. St. John the Evangelist Catholic Parish, E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 23-CV-4991,
Suffolk County Index No. 614911/2021
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close these cases and to mail a copy of this order to
the New York State Supreme Courts in Nassau County and Suffolk County.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
Allyne R. Ross
United States District Judge
Dated: August 23, 2023
Brooklyn, New York