Bell v. Kaleida Health et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM
Document 46
Filed 12/29/25
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NICOLE M. BELL,
Plaintiff,
V.
KALEIDA HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.
UN
STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
DEC 29 2025
MARY C.
WESTERN DISTRI
WENGUTH, CLERK OF NY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM
Before the court is plaintiff Nicole Bell's Second Motion [42]] seeking remand of this action to State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie. The motion has been referred to me by District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. for initial consideration [6], and is opposed by the remaining defendants (collectively, "Kaleida") [44]. For the following reasons, I recommend that the Second Motion be granted.
DISCUSSION
Familiarity with the relevant procedural history is presumed. Now that the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of Bell's federal claims [40], the parties agree that her state law claims should be resolved in state court. They disagree only as to whether the remaining claims should be remanded to state court or dismissed without prejudice (subject to refiling in state court), with Bell preferring the former approach, and Kaleida the latter. Judge Sinatra has stated that he "is inclined to dismiss the remainder of this action without prejudice" [41], but has not yet decided that question.
- Bracketed references are to CM/ECF docket entries, and page refences are to CM/ECF pagination.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

Case 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM
Document 46 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 4
Bell argues that "dismissal without prejudice would require [her] to re-file her complaint in state court, and she would have to repeat another round of service of process upon four (4) separate defendants. Further, because the relevant statutes of limitations now have run during the pendency of this matter in federal court, re-filing would introduce into the case issues relating to timeliness of the state law claims . ... [R]emand is the more favorable procedure under the circumstances, since it allows the state court to continue administration of the case in due course without having to start the litigation all over again. Thereby, judicial economy would be advanced". Bell's Memorandum of Law [42-1] at 4.
Kaleida responds that "concerns over the statute of limitations are not warranted. Plaintiff has acknowledged in her motion papers that applicable statutes provide tolling during the pendency of this case in federal court", and that "[i]f the original complaint is remanded to state court and remains as the operative pleading, the state court will not be familiar with the lengthy procedural history that has led to so many parties, claims, and allegations being dismissed from the case. The state court judge and her staff will have to expend additional resources parsing through the complaint to determine who is still involved and what is actually at issue. It would be far more efficient for plaintiff to simply file a new complaint that reflects the current state of the matters to be litigated". Wiltenburg declaration [44], 1124, 31.
I believe that Kaleida overestimates the time it will take the state court to familiarize itself with the remaining issues, all of which have been fully briefed by the parties. "Even when the applicable statute of limitations has not expired, a remand may best promote the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Both litigants and States have an interest in the prompt and efficient resolution of controversies based on state law. Any time a district court dismisses, rather than remands, a removed case involving pendent claims, the parties will
-2-

Case 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM
Document 46
Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 4
have to refile their papers in state court, at some expense of time and money. Moreover, the state court will have to reprocess the case, and this procedure will involve similar costs. Dismissal of the claim therefore will increase both the expense and the time involved in enforcing state law [T]his consequence, even taken alone, provides good reason to grant federal courts wide discretion to remand cases involving pendent claims." Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 353 (1988).
See also Sunnen v. New York State Department of Health, 544 F. App'x 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2013) ("where the removed federal claims have been dismissed ... concerns of comity and of federalism encourage remanding to the state courts cases in which state court adjudication can properly claim primacy of interest"); Kew v. Town of Northfield, 681 F. Supp. 3d 247, 251 (D. Vt. 2023) ("remanding will promote the values of economy and convenience because it will save [plaintiff] the time and expenses associated with refiling the same claims").
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I recommend that Bell's Second Motion [42] be granted, and that her remaining claims be remanded to State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie for further proceedings. Unless otherwise ordered by District Judge Sinatra, any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the clerk of this court by January 12, 2026. Any requests for extension of this deadline must be made to Judge Sinatra. A party who "fails to object timely ... waives any right to further judicial review of [this] decision". Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F. 2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1988); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).
Moreover, the district judge will ordinarily refuse to consider de novo arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but were not, presented to the
-3-

Case 1:24-cv-00572-JLS-JJM Document 46 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 4

magistrate judge in the first instance. Patterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Municipal

Wholesale Electric Co., 840 F. 2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. 1988).

The parties are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 72(b) and (c) of this Court’s Local
Rules of Civil Procedure, written objections shall “specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for each
objection . . . supported by legal authority”, and must include “a written statement either
certifying that the objections do not raise new legal/factual arguments, or identifying the new
arguments and explaining why they were not raised to the Magistrate Judge”. Failure to comply

with these provisions may result in the district judge’s refusal to consider the objections.

Dated: December 29, 2025

/s/_ Jeremiah J. McCarthy
JEREMIAH J. MCCARTHY
United States Magistrate Judge