Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center v. Tater-Alexander

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER; RE Plaintiff's 6 Motion to Remand, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/11/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND
MEDICAL CENTER,

1:11-cv-00487 OWW SMS
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
RE PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION TO
REMAND.

Plaintiff,

6
7

v.

8

MICHAEL TATER-ALEXANDER,

9

Defendant.

10
I.

11
12

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Plaintiff‟s motion to remand the case to

13

Fresno County Superior Court. Doc. 6. Defendant opposes the

14

motion. Doc. 14.

15
16

II.

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against

17
18
19

Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno.
Doc. 1, Ex. A. The Complaint seeks a temporary restraining order

20

and preliminary and permanent injunctions: (1) enjoining

21

Defendant from engaging in certain conduct; and (2) preventing

22

Defendant from remaining on Plaintiff‟s premises once Defendant

23

has been discharged or has refused the care that can be provided

24
25
26
27
28

to him, or if Defendant engages in prohibited conduct.
Defendant removed the case to federal court on March 22,
2011. Doc. 1. On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to
remand (Doc. 6), which Defendant opposed (Doc. 14). Plaintiff
1

1

contends that remand is proper because the court does not have

2

jurisdiction. Plaintiff applied for an order shortening the time

3

for hearing of the motion (Doc. 8), which was granted in court on

4

March 31, 2011 (Minute Order 12). The motion was heard on April

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

7, 2011.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides in pertinent part:
[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.

13

“The threshold requirement for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is

14

a finding that the complaint contains a cause of action that is

15

within the original jurisdiction of the district court.” Hunter

16

v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting

17

Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.

18
19
20
21
22

2003). “A defendant may remove an action to federal court based
on federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.”

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at 1042.
To determine whether removal is proper based on “federal

23

question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule „provides

24

that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

25

presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded

26

complaint.‟” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at 1042

27
28

(quoting Fisher v. NOS Commc'ns (In re NOS Commc'ns), 495 F.3d
2

1

1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)). More specifically, federal question

2

jurisdiction exists “if a well-pleaded complaint establishes

3

either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that

4

[2] the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on

5
6
7

resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Armstrong

v. N. Mariana Islands, 576 F.3d 950, 955-956 (9th Cir. 2009)

8

(quoting Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive

9

Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean

10

Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008)

11

(internal quotation marks omitted).

12
13
14
15

“Whether the complaint states a claim arising under federal
law must be ascertained by the legal construction of [the
plaintiff's] allegations, and not by the effect attributed to

16

those allegations by the adverse party.” Ultramar Amer. Ltd. v.

17

Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990). “The mere existence

18

of a federal defense to a state law claim is insufficient to

19

create federal jurisdiction over a case.” U.S. v. Arcata, 629

20

F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, a counterclaim involving

21

federal law does not provide a basis for federal question

22
23
24

jurisdiction. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys.,

Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830, 122 S.Ct. 1889 (2002). There is an

25

exception where plaintiff's federal claim has been disguised by

26

“artful pleading,” such as where the claim is exclusively

27

governed by federal law or is a state claim preempted by federal

28

3

1

law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372

2

(9th Cir.1987). However, the artful pleading exception is invoked

3

“only in exceptional circumstances as it raises difficult issues

4

of state and federal relationships and often yields

5
6
7
8

unsatisfactory results.” Id. (quoting Salveson v. W. States

Bankcard Ass‟n, 731 F.2d 1423, 1427 (9th Cir. 1984)).
To protect the jurisdiction of state courts, removal

9

jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand. Harris v.

10

Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005)

11

(citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09,

12
13
14
15

61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941)). Any doubt as to the right of
removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, 980
F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). It is presumed “that a cause lies

16

outside [the] limited jurisdiction [of the federal courts] and

17

the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party

18

asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at

19

1042 (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684

20

(9th Cir. 2006) (alterations in original).

21
22

IV.

ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction

23
24
25

Plaintiff argues that the case should be remanded because
the court does not have jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff is a

26

California corporation with its principal office in Fresno and

27

Defendant is a resident of Fresno, Plaintiff correctly asserts

28

4

1

that the court does not have diversity jurisdiction under 28

2

U.S.C. § 1332. At issue is whether the court has federal question

3

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

4

Here, the Complaint seeks a temporary restraining order and

5
6
7

preliminary and permanent injunctions: (1) enjoining Defendant
from engaging in certain conduct, including: (i) using profanity

8

against medical personnel; (ii) refusing to be examined; (iii)

9

refusing to have his vital signs taken; (iv) interrupting medical

10

personnel when they are trying to speak with him; (v) threatening

11

to sue medical personnel; (vi) ordering his doctor and nurse out

12
13
14
15

of the room; (vii) refusing to remain on the floor when connected
to an IV pump and going outside to smoke; (viii) attempting to
get food from the cafeteria after being ordered to not eat by

16

mouth; (ix) loudly criticizing medical staff; (x) refusing to

17

permit his nurse to discontinue his IV pump; (xi) yelling at

18

medical personnel; and (xii) closing the door to his room and

19

refusing to allow medical personnel in; and (2) preventing

20

Defendant from remaining on Plaintiff‟s premises if Defendant:

21

(i) has been discharged; (ii) has refused the care that can be

22
23
24

provided to him; or (iii) engages in prohibited conduct.
Plaintiffs‟ request for injunctive relief is brought under state

25

law, pertaining to the operation, security, and orderly

26

procedures of the hospital. On its face, the Complaint does not

27

invoke a federal question. See Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582

28

5

1
2
3
4

F.3d at 1042.
Defendant asserts that there is federal question
jurisdiction because this action arises under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”). Defendant

5
6
7
8
9

argues that whether Defendant has a psychological disability
within the meaning of the ADA is central to this case, and that
Plaintiff‟s desired injunctive relief violates the ADA.
Here, the ADA does not create the cause of action. Rather,

10

the ADA is a potential defense and/or counterclaim Defendant

11

asserts in opposition to Plaintiff‟s claim. “The mere existence

12
13
14
15

of a federal defense to a state law claim is insufficient to
create federal jurisdiction over a case.” U.S. v. Arcata, 629
F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, a counterclaim

16

involving federal law does not provide a basis for federal

17

question jurisdiction. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air

18

Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 1894

19

(2002). This is not a case where the Plaintiff has omitted

20

necessary federal questions essential to his or her claim,

21

necessitating the invocation of the artful pleading doctrine.

22
23
24
25

Federal question jurisdiction over this case is lacking.
B. Related Case
Defendant concedes that under normal circumstances,

26

Plaintiff‟s claim for injunctive relief against Defendant would

27

“likely be reasonable and properly heard before the Fresno

28

6

1

Superior Court.” Doc. 14, 2. However, Defendant argues that the

2

case should not be remanded to state court because Plaintiff and

3

Defendant have been in litigation for over three years in a

4

related federal district court case, Tater-Alexander v. Community

5
6
7
8
9

Regional Medical Center, Case No. 1:08-cv-372-OWW-SKO (“TaterAlexander Case”). Defendant asserts that this case should be
joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18.
A federal district court “shall have supplemental

10

jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims

11

in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form

12
13
14
15

part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Supplemental
jurisdiction is constitutional only if the federal and state

16

claims (1) form one constitutional “case” and (2) “derive from a

17

common nucleus of operative facts.” Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co.,

18

301 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United Mine Workers

19

of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130 (1966)).

20

Supplemental jurisdiction, however, does not provide a basis for

21

removal to federal court. Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

537 U.S. 28, 34, 123 S.Ct. 366 (2002) (“Ancillary jurisdiction
... cannot provide the original jurisdiction that petitioners
must show in order to qualify for removal under § 1441”).
Here, the federal Tater-Alexander Case and this case share
some common facts. The Plaintiff‟s Request for Judicial Notice of
7

1

Pleadings includes pleadings filed in the Tater-Alexander Case:

2

The Declaration of Thomas Mansfield, M.D., in support of his

3

motion for summary judgment (Doc. 1-3, 15-41); The Declaration of

4

Corporal Lonnie Amerjan, in support of his motion for summary

5
6
7

judgment (Id. at 42-46); and Response of Defendants Fresno
Community Hospital and Medical Center and Marilyn Jo Greene, R.N.

8

to Plaintiff‟s MIL No. 3 to Preclude Evidence of Settlement

9

Discussions (Id. at 47-55). However, supplemental jurisdiction

10

does not provide a basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

11

Syngenta, 537 U.S. at 34. Although this case is partially related

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

to the Tater-Alexander Case by reason of the underlying issues
raised about Defendant‟s interaction with the hospital and its
staff, supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised under 28
U.S.C. § 1441.
V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

19

1. Plaintiff‟s motion to remand is GRANTED.

20

2. Pursuant to both parties‟ stipulations during the April 7,

21
22

2011 hearing, neither party shall introduce any evidence,
finding, or decision from this remanded state court case

23
24
25

into the federal Tater-Alexander Case.
3. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed form of order consistent

26

with this memorandum decision within five (5) days of

27

electronic service of this memorandum decision.

28

8

1

SO ORDERED.

2

DATED: April 11, 2011
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9