The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed 23-CV-4723, 23-CV-4889, 23-CV-4926,
From State Court 23-CV-4930, 23-CV-5079, 23-CV-5110,
23-CV-5154, 23-CV-5173
-----------------------------------------------------------x
PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge:
Before the Court are motions to remand eight actions brought under the New York Child
Victims Act (“CVA”) alleging sexual abuse by individuals employed by and/or associated with
various organizations, primarily churches and schools, affiliated with the Diocese of Rockville
Centre (the “Diocese”). The Diocese is the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding currently
pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York,1 and the
defendants in the eight actions (“Defendants”) have removed these cases from state court solely
on the basis that this Court has jurisdiction over these actions because they are “related to” that
bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Defendants oppose the remand motions,
arguing that remand would undermine judicial efficiency by hampering the “efficient transfer” of
the cases to the Southern District of New York pursuant to a motion to fix venue under 28 U.S.C.
§ 157(b)(5) filed in that district by the Diocese,2 and is otherwise unjustified. Defendants argue
in the alternative that if the Court does not deny the remand motions, it should at least hold the
eight cases in abeyance pending the Section 157(b)(5) motion. The Court rejects Defendants’
arguments and remands these cases to state court.
1 See In re The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, Case No. 20-12345
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).
2 The motion is currently pending before the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield, No. 23-CV-
5751 (LGS) (Dkt. 1).
The Court writes with the benefit of several decisions3 remanding dozens of the more than
220 CVA cases filed against Defendants in state court and subsequently removed to this district.
As the Honorable Gary R. Brown wrote 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), the CVA
plaintiffs’ claims have already faced significant delay due to “excessive litigation wrangling” and
a nearly three-year stay of these state court actions related to the bankruptcy proceeding. As the
Honorable Martin Glenn, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Southern District of New York who is
presiding over the Diocese’s Chapter 11 matter, noted in his decision denying the Diocese’s
request to continue the stay: “For many Survivors, allowing [further] time to pass means that
[Plaintiffs] may not be able to recover either because the evidence for their case is lost, or because
they themselves do not live long enough to press their claims.” In re The Roman Catholic Diocese
of Rockville Centre, New York, Case No. 20-12345 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. 203, at 666.) The
Court therefore is compelled to rule on the remand motions without waiting for a decision on the
Section 157(b)(5) motion.
As to Defendants’ arguments regarding jurisdiction and abstention, the Court incorporates
by reference the Honorable Hector Gonzalez’s comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion
remanding ten CVA 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 Judge
Gonzalez’s opinion, the Court finds that it does have “related to” jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
3 See, e.g., 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); 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);
In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed From State Court, No. 23-CV-4991 (ARR) (SIL), 2023
WL 5436138 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2023); In re Additional Child Victims Act Cases Removed From
State Court, No. 23-CV-04580 (JMA) (ST), 2023 WL 5287219 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2023).
claims, but that the doctrine of mandatory abstention requires that the eight cases before this Court
be remanded. Id. at *5–8. Further, the Court adopts Judge Gonzalez’s conclusion that even if
mandatory abstention did not apply, it would be appropriate for the Court to remand the instant
actions under the doctrines of permissive and equitable abstention. Id. at *8.
The Court is also unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that holding the remand motions
in abeyance pending Judge Schofield’s decision on the Diocese’s Section 157(b)(5) motion would
be the “more judicially efficient approach.” See, e.g., Rogers v. Maria Regina Roman Catholic
Church, et al., 23-CV-5110 (PKC), Dkt. 10, at 5. The Court fails to see what “efficiency gains
from removal” will be “lost” if these cases are remanded to state court. (Id.) As the Honorable
Allyne R. Ross explained in In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed From States Court: “Section
157(b)(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.” In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed From States Court, No. 23-CV-4991 (ARR)
(SIL), Dkt. 17, at 3 (emphasis in original).
Therefore, because the Court must abstain from these cases, and sees no reason to hold the
remand motions in abeyance, Plaintiffs’ motions to remand are granted. The following cases are
hereby remanded to the courts from which they were removed:
• T.B. v. USA Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus, Inc. et al., No. 23-CV-4723, Nassau
County Supreme Court Index No. 900040/2021
• Pedersen v. St. Rose of Lima Parish, No. 23-CV-4889, Nassau County Supreme Court
Index No. 900135/2021
• MacKenzie v. Saint Patrick’s Church et al., No. 23-CV-4926, Nassau County Supreme
Court Index No. 900227/2021
• Montross v. Our Holy Redeemer Roman Catholic Church, et al., No. 23-CV-4930, Nassau
County Supreme Court Index No. 900170/2021
• Musolino v. St. Joseph Catholic School, No. 23-CV-5079, Suffolk County Supreme Court
Index No. 610237/2021
• Rogers v. Maria Regina Roman Catholic Church, No. 23-CV-5110, Nassau County
Supreme Court Index No. 900112/2021
• ARK669 Doe v. Holy Trinity Diocesan High School et al, No. 23-CV-5154, Nassau County
Supreme Court Index No. 900363/2021
• Grace v. St. Mary’s College Preparatory High School et al., No. 23-CV-5173, Nassau
County Supreme Court Index No. 900383/2021
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/Pamela K. Chen
PAMELA K. CHEN
United States District Judge
Dated: August 29, 2023
Brooklyn, New York