Amy Roth et al v. CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P. et al

Filing 86

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court therefore ORDERS Ekin to SHOW CAUSE by Friday, November15, 2013, why this case should not be remanded to Los Angeles County SuperiorCourt for lack of s ubject-matter jurisdiction. Ekin may also address whether the Court should stay this case pending resolution of her appeal. Defendants are welcome to submit a simultaneous response on these issues. No hearing will be held. Failure to timely respond will result in automatic remand of this case. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AMY ROTH, SHANA EKIN, as
individuals and on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.
LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION

CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL
CENTER, L.P., d/b/a CHA Hollywood
Presbyterian Medical Center and
Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center,
and CHS HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:12-cv-07559-ODW(SHx)

On October 25, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff Shana Ekin’s Motion for Class

20

Certification.

(ECF No. 85.)

The effect of that ruling was to preclude Ekin

21

proceeding on a class-action basis and leave only Ekin’s claims viable in this action.

22

Since this case was removed under the Class Action Fairness Act, and there is now no

23

class action, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over Ekin’s individual claims.

24

The Court also notes that Ekin filed an interlocutory appeal in the Ninth Circuit

25

Court of Appeals. Roth et al. v. CHA Hollywood Medical Center et al., No. 13-80222

26

(9th Cir. Notice of Appeal filed Nov. 7, 2013). Ekin admits in her brief that this Court

27

no longer has jurisdiction over her case so long as the Court’s denial of class

28

certification stands.

1

The Court therefore ORDERS Ekin to SHOW CAUSE by Friday, November

2

15, 2013, why this case should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior

3

Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ekin may also address whether the Court

4

should stay this case pending resolution of her appeal. Defendants are welcome to

5

submit a simultaneous response on these issues. No hearing will be held. Failure to

6

timely respond will result in automatic remand of this case.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

November 8, 2013

10
11
12

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2