Nancy Shy v. La Casa Mental Health Rehabilitation Center et al

Filing 18

ORDER that Defendant USAs Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is GRANTED 8 .The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant La Casa Mental Health Rehabilitation Center Motion to Dismiss 10 and REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Nothing in this Order should be construed as prohibiting Defendants from challenging the sufficiency of the FAC in state court by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court, South District, Long Beach, No NC 058673. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated). (Attachments: # 1. remand letter). (lc) Modified on 5/29/2014 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 2:14-cv-02998-ODW(JCx)

NANCY SHY,

ORDER GRANTING

v.

14

LA CASA MENTAL HEALTH

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

15

REHABILITATION CENTER;

DISMISS [8]

16

TELECARE CORPORATION; UNITED

17

STATES OF AMERICA and DOES 1

18

through 80, inclusive,

19

Defendants.

20

On April 18, 2014, Defendants removed this action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.)

21

On April 25, 2014, Defendant United States of America filed a Motion to Dismiss

22

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 8.) Defendant USA asserts

23

that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Shy’s complaint because she

24

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Id.)

25

On May 15, 2014, Shy filed a non-opposition to Defendant United States of

26

America’s motion to dismiss.

27

GRANTS Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss Without

28

Prejudice. (ECF No. 8.)

(ECF No. 17.)

Accordingly, the Court hereby

1

On May 2, 2014, Defendant La Casa Mental Health Rehabilitation Center

2

(“LCMHRC”) also filed a Motion to Dismiss Shy’s Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Shy

3

requests that the court remand her remaining state-law claims to the Superior Court, in

4

light of her non-opposition to the dismissal of her federal claim. (ECF No. 17.)

5

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, among others, “the

6

district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

7

§ 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). Ordinarily,

8

if a plaintiff dismisses federal claims early in the litigation, a district court should

9

remand the pendent state-law claims. Id. at 350. In deciding whether to continue

10

exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the district court should weigh several factors,

11

including “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Id. The court

12

should also take into account whether the plaintiff has dismissed her federal claims in

13

an attempt to manipulate the forum. Id. at 357.

14

The Court finds that the most appropriate course of action is to remand the

15

remainder of this case back to state court. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction

16

and therefore must ensure that it acts only within its restricted purview. While this

17

Court has discretion to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shy’s

18

pendent state-law claims, there is little reason to do so. There would be no waste of

19

judicial resources by sending this case back to state court, because the Court has not

20

touched upon the merits of Shy’s action. While Defendant LCMHRC filed a now-

21

moot motion to dismiss, the Court never had a chance to rule on it. The state court

22

would therefore not have to duplicate any of this Court’s work.

23

Additionally, the Court finds that Shy has not engaged in any manipulative

24

tactics that would counsel against declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. As

25

the plaintiff, Shy is the master of her complaint and may bring whichever claims

26

against LCMHRC she desires consistent with Rule 11(b). She originally filed her

27

action in state court, so she has not engaged in forum shopping by eliminating her

28

federal claims simply to go back to where she started.

2

1

Considering the particular circumstances of this case, the Court declines to

2

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rice’s remaining state-law claims. See 28

3

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

4

California citizens the Court finds that it also lacks diversity jurisdiction.

5

§ 1332(a)(1); (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5).

Since Shy and Defendant LCMHRC appear to be both
See

6

In sum, Defendant USA’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is GRANTED.

7

(ECF No. 8.) The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant LCMHRC’s Motion to

8

Dismiss, (ECF No. 10), and REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior

9

Court. See Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 354–55. Nothing in this Order should be

10

construed as prohibiting Defendants from challenging the sufficiency of the FAC in

11

state court.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

May 27, 2014

15
16
17

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles Superior Court,
South District, Long Beach, No. NC 058673

24
25
26
27
28

3