The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed
From State Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
23-CV-4787, 23-CV-4833,
23-CV-4977, 23-CV-5126
--------------------------------------X
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions to remand four
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 four
actions (“Defendants”) have removed these cases from state court,
arguing that this Court has jurisdiction over these actions because
they are “related to” that bankruptcy proceeding, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1334(b). Plaintiffs in each of the four actions
subsequently moved to remand, arguing that abstention is
1 See In re The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, Case No.
20-12345 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).
appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). 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), which was filed in that district by
the Diocese,2 and that remand is otherwise unjustified. Defendants
also argue, in the alternative, that if the Court does not deny
the remand motions, it should at least hold the four cases in
abeyance pending the 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) motion. The Court
respectfully rejects Defendants’ arguments as unpersuasive and
remands these cases to state court.
The Court writes with the benefit of several decisions3
remanding dozens of the CVA cases filed against defendants
affiliated with the Diocese in state court and subsequently removed
to the Eastern District of New York. 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
2 The motion is currently pending before the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield. In
re The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, No. 23-CV-5751
(LGS), ECF No. 1.
3 See, e.g., In re Child Victims Act Cases Removed From State Ct., No. 23-cv-
4723 (PKC), 2023 WL 5587623 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2023); In re Child Victims Act
Cases Removed From State Court, No. 23-cv-5029 (GRB), 2023 WL 5123396
(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).
significant delay due to “excessive litigation wrangling” and a
nearly three-year stay of these state court actions related to the
bankruptcy proceeding. Furthermore, there is no requirement that
the cases must currently be in federal court to be transferred to
the Southern District of New York. See In re Johnson & Johnson,
No. 19-cv-3480(LGS), 2019 WL 2497856, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2019)
(“a motion to fix venue can be directed to cases pending in state
court as well”). The Court agrees with, and incorporates by
reference, Judge Brown’s reasoning and will rule on the remand
motions without waiting for a decision on the 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5)
motion.
As it relates to Defendants’ other 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 has “related to”
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, but that the doctrine of
mandatory abstention requires that the four 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 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) motion would be
the “more judicially efficient approach.” See, e.g., Ryan v. Our
Lady of Mercy Roman Catholic Church, No. 23-cv-4833 (KAM), ECF No.
7 at 24. There is no dispute that the plain language of 28 U.S.C.
§ 157(b)(5) authorizes the transfer of cases from state court to
federal court. See In re Pan Am. Corp., 16 F.3d 513, 516–17 (2d
Cir. 1994) (“plaintiffs do not dispute that the plain language of
section 157(b)(5) authorized the district court to transfer their
cases from Florida state court to the Southern District of New
York where Pan Am's bankruptcy was proceeding”). The Court agrees
with the Honorable Allyne R. Ross, who wrote that “Defendants fail
to state exactly what 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 State Ct., No. 23-CV-4789 (ARR), 2023 WL 5436138, at
*2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2023). As such, the Court sees no compelling
reason to hold the motions in abeyance pending disposition of the
Diocese’s 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) motion.
Therefore, because mandatory abstention requires the remand
of these cases, and the Court 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:
e ARK453 Doe v. Holy Trinity Diocesan High School, et al,
No. 23-cv-4787, Nassau County Supreme Court Index No.
900095/2021;
e Ryan v. Our Lady of Mercy Roman Catholic Church, et al.,
No. 23-cv-4833, Nassau County Supreme Court Index No.
900029/2021;
e ARK561 Doe et al. v. Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn et
al., No. 23-CV-4977, Nassau County Supreme Court Index
No. 900221/2021; and
e Janas v. Parish of St. Mary, No. 23-cv-5126, Suffolk
County Supreme Court Index No. 611337/2021.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer the
cases and records to the state courts, 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
Dated: November 3, 2023
Brooklyn, New York
) □□ et etre
HON. KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York