Order | Filed: August 05, 2026
| Entered: August 05, 2026
Tobierre v. Community Health Services et al
P.I.: Other | Connecticut
Order
ORDER OF REMAND. On November 20, 2025, Defendant Community Health Services (CHS) removed this case from the state superior court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 233(l)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, and 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). ECF No. 1 . The basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction was the presence of CHS as a defendant because CHS is a program grantee under 42 U.S.C. § 254B, and thus, the remedy for damages against the CHS and its employees is through an action against the United States. After removal, the United States appeared in this action and was substituted as a defendant for the CHS. See ECF No. 68.
On May 31, 2026, Plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss her claims against CHS. ECF No. 74 . The Court sought clarification from Plaintiff, noting that CHS was no longer a defendant in this action because it had been replaced by the United States. ECF No. 75. In response, Plaintiff indicated that she intended to voluntarily dismiss her claims against the United States. ECF No. 76 . The Clerk of Court thus terminated the United States as a defendant. The Court then issued an Order to Show Cause 77 , because with the dismissal of the United States, it appeared that the Court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 77. In response, Plaintiff agreed that the case should be remanded. ECF No. 79 .
The only basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this case was the presence of the United States as a defendant. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to (1) remand this matter back to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, and (2) close this case. Royal Ins. Co. v. Jones, 76 F. Supp. 2d 202, 204 (D. Conn. 1999) ("[A] court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action must remand that action to state court sua sponte or on motion."); see United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Loc. 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (recognizing that lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by the court and that "[w]here jurisdiction is lacking... dismissal is mandatory").
Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 8/5/2026. (AL)