Karunakaran v. BMCC/Cuny City University of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHITRA KARUNAKARAN, Plaintiff, – against – ORDER BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, 18-cv-10723 (ER) ANTONIO PEREZ, KARRIN WILKS, SANGEETA BISHOP, RIFAT SALAM, ANTIONETTE MCKAIN, ROBERT DIAZ, IAN WENTWORTH, MICHAEL HUTMAKER, and MARVA CRAIG, Defendants. Ramos, D.J.: Following this Court’s order dismissing pro se Plaintiff Chitra Karunakaran’s Second Amended Complaint on March 28, 2022 (Doc. 75), Karunakaran filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on April 25, 2022 (Doc. 77) and a motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2022 in which she sought to be able to prosecute her state law claims in state court (Doc. 81). �e Court denied Karunakaran’s motion on May 31, 2023, on the ground that Karunakaran had already filed a notice of appeal, which divests the district court of jurisdiction. Doc. 83 at 2 (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). �e Court further noted that, even if it did have jurisdiction, it could not provide Karunakaran the requested remand because the matter was originally filed in federal court and was never removed from state court. Id. at 1 n.1. �e Court also noted, however, that, because the March 28, 2022 order dismissed her state law claims without prejudice, Karunakaran was in any event already free to prosecute the state law claims in state court without an order of remand. Id. at 2. Karunakaran now moves for the chief judges of the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York to conduct a “joint review” of this Court’s May 31, 2023 order. Doc. 84. Karunakaran argues that the Court’s decision violated her due process rights by failing to discuss Judge Chin’s dissent in Ya Chin v. The City University of New York, 805 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2015), in which he recommended vacating a judgment and remanding. Jd. As the Court emphasized in the May 31, 2023 order, this Court cannot remand a case that was never filed in state court; moreover, no remand—nor any other action by any federal court— is necessary for Karunakaran to pursue her state claims in state court. Doc. 83. Additionally, as before, the Court continues to lack jurisdiction over Karunakaran’s motions because of the pending appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2); Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58. Thus, even if this motion was procedurally proper (which it 1s not) and the Court had jurisdiction over it (which it does not), Karunakaran has not demonstrated any way in which her rights—due process or otherwise—were limited, denied, or otherwise violated. Accordingly, the Motion is denied. It is SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2023 a (a New York, New York Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.