“In situations where the removed federal claims have been dismissed, we have noted that ‘concerns of comity and of federalism . . . encourage remanding to the state courts cases in which state court adjudication can properly claim primacy of interest”
How later courts described this case
- “In situations where the removed federal claims have been dismissed, we have noted that ‘concerns of comity and of federalism . . . encourage remanding to the state courts cases in which state court adjudication can properly claim primacy of interest”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SiRTES DISTRIGF =
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iS ae
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2 MAY 02 2025
LGny oe
: 1H rh
GLORIA MAWAZO, individually and Yes TERN ERIC or
as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF
ABDUL SHARIFU, Deceased, and
PHYLLIS JACKSON as Administratrix
of the ESTATE OF LEDRISE N. 24-CV-583 (JLS) (JJM)
CURRY, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
CITY OF BUFFALO, MAYOR BYRON
BROWN, COUNTY OF ERIE, and
COUNTY EXECUTIVE MARK
POLONCARZ,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 22, 2024, Plaintiffs commenced an action in Supreme Court, Erie
County asserting various claims against the City of Buffalo and Mayor Byron Brown
(collectively, the “City Defendants”), as well as the County of Erie and County
Executive Mark Poloncarz (collectively, the “County Defendants”), based on a storm
that affected the City of Buffalo and surrounding areas in December 2022. See Dkt. 1-
1. Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 21, 2024. Dkt. 1. The case
has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 2.
Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by the City Defendants (Dkt. 12)
and the County Defendants (Dkt. 10). Plaintiffs opposed both motions. Dkt. 15, 16.
Defendants did not reply.
On April 10, 2025, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that “the motions to dismiss [10, 12] be granted with respect to
plaintiff Mawazo’s second cause of action, and that the matter be remanded to New
York State Supreme Court, Erie County for consideration of the remaining claims.”
Dkt. 17 at 11. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of
a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court
must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which
no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
This Court has reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on that
review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge McCarthy’s recommendation to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ second cause of action.
In addition, the Court accepts Judge McCarthy’s recommendation to remand
the matter to state court for consideration of the remaining claims. District courts
“have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims ‘that are so related to claims in
the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Kolart v. New York-
Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 121—22 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).
Here, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims
because they arise from the same core set of facts as Plaintiffs’ federal claims.
Subsection (c) of Section 13867 “confirms the discretionary nature of
supplemental jurisdiction by enumerating the circumstances in which district courts
can refuse” to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Id. at 122 (quoting City of Chicago
v. Intl Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)). Of “particular relevance here, a
district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all
claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).
Once “a district court’s discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(3), it balances the
traditional values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity... in
deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction.” Jd. (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted).
Here, the Court’s discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(8) because Plaintiffs’
federal claims are dismissed. The Court, furthermore, declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction in the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and
comity. See Sunnen v. New York State Dep’t of Health, 544 F. App’x 15, 17 (2d Cir.
2013) (“In situations where the removed federal claims have been dismissed, we have
noted that ‘concerns of comity and of federalism . . . encourage remanding to the state
courts cases in which state court adjudication can properly claim primacy of interest”)
(quoting Naylor v. Case & McGrath, Inc., 585 F.2d 557, 562-63 (2d Cir. 1978)).
For the reasons above and in the R&R, the [10] and [12] motions to dismiss are
GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action. The case is remanded to
Supreme Court, Erie County for consideration of the remaining claims. The clerk of
court shall close this case and effectuate the remand.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 2, 2025
Buffalo, New York □
C Aa
mgt
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. ji
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE