The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed From
State Court : 23-CV-4761, 23-CV-4893,
: 23-CV-4971, 23-CV-5026,
23-CV-5104, 23-CV-5113,
:
53-CV-5134, 23-CV-5199
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge :
Before the Court are eight cases brought und er the New York Child Victims Act, each
alleging sexual abuse against persons associated with the defendants and the Diocese of
Rockville Centre. The plaintiffs brought approximately 220 of these cases in New York state
courts, asserting solely state law claims. The defendants removed all of them to the Eastern
District of New York, on the theory that they are “related to” a bankruptcy case, which is
proceeding in the Southern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The defendants argue that
removal will allow for an efficient transfer of the cases to the Southern District. The plaintiffs
move to remand to state court.
The Diocese is the debtor in the bankruptcy proceedings. However, the defendants argue
that they “are co-insured entities under the Diocese’s insurance policies, and any damages for
which [they] might become liable could therefore diminish those insurance policies, which are
the property of the Diocese’s estate.” See In re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed from State
Ct., No. 23-CV-4741, 2023 WL 5287067, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2023). The Diocese has
filed a motion to consolidate these cases under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), which authorizes
consolidation of personal injury claims in the district court in which a debtor’s bankruptcy case
is pending. That motion is currently pending in the Southern District before Judge Lorna
Schofield. The defendants request that the Court deny the plaintiffs’ motions to remand or, at the
very least, hold them in abeyance until Judge Schofield rules on the Diocese’s motion.1
Six of my colleagues in this District have granted similar plaintiffs’ motions and have
remanded 129 cases to state courts. Their reasoning is persuasive. Accordingly, I grant the
plaintiffs’ motions for substantially the same reasons set forth in Judge Hector Gonzales’s
opinion in Child Victims Act Cases, 2023 WL 5287067, and Judge Gary Brown’s opinion in In
re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed from State Ct., No. 23-CV-05029, 2023 WL 5123396
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2023).2 Like Judges Gonzalez and Brown, I conclude that these cases are
not “core” Bankruptcy Code proceedings; rather, they are “related to” a case pending under the
Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, mandatory abstention applies under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). The
defendants’ argument that their cases fall under the exception to mandatory abstention in 28
U.S.C. § 157(b)(4) is not convincing. That provision applies only to “the liquidation or
estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the
1 The plaintiff in Eaton v. St. Barnabas, No. 23-CV-04893, has not yet moved to remand, but he filed a
letter requesting a pre-motion conference on his anticipated motion to remand, raising the same issues
as the other plaintiffs’ motions. (ECF No. 10.) The defendant has not filed a response, although my
Individual Rules call for a response “within seven days.” Rule 4.A. However, the defendant in the
Eaton case is represented by the same counsel as the defendants in two other Child Victims Act cases
pending before me. Counsel has filed substantially identical memoranda in opposition in those two
cases. Accordingly, I see no need to defer the resolution of these cases until the defendant responds in
the Eaton case. See In re: Child Victims Act Cases, 2023 WL 5287067, at *1 n.1 (reaching the same
conclusion).
2 See In re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed from State Ct., No. 23-CV-4723, 2023 WL 5587623, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2023) (Chen, J.); In re Child Victims Act Cases Removed from State Ct., No. 23-
CV-4789, 2023 WL 5436138, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2023) (Ross, J.); In re: Child Victims Act Cases
Removed from State Ct., No. 23-CV-4782, ECF No. 13 at 1 (Gujarati, J.); In re: Child Victims Act
Cases Removed from State Ct., No. 23-CV-4584, ECF No. 13 at 1 (Azrack, J.) (all incorporating Judge
Gonzales’s and Judge Brown’s opinions by reference).
estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). The bankruptcy judge has already determined that these
lawsuits are not claims against the Diocese’s estate and that the defendants do not have a viable
claim for indemnification against the Diocese, so the exception does not apply. Child Victims
Act Cases, 2023 WL 5287067, at *6 (citing In re Roman Cath. Diocese of Rockville Ctr., New
York, 651 B.R. 622, 644–45, 657–58 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023)). In any event, remand is
appropriate under the doctrines of permissive abstention, see 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), and
equitable remand, see 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b).
Moreover, the bankruptcy proceeding has already caused significant delays, and any
further obstruction of state court actions will only make it more difficult for the plaintiffs to
prove their claims. See Child Victims Act Cases, 2023 WL 5123396, at *3. A stay pending the
resolution of the Diocese’s motion in the Southern District is therefore not warranted, and the
cases are remanded.
CONCLUSION
The plaintiffs’ motions to remand are granted. The cases listed in the caption are hereby
remanded. 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 and Suffolk Counties.
SO ORDERED.
s/Ann M. Donnelly
________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 5, 2023