California Department of Health Care Services v. Director, California Office of Administrative Hearings

Filing 31

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/10/2014 adopting 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 13 Motion to Remand and REMANDING CASE to Tuolumne County Superior Court and denying as moot 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Certified Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01858-LJO-SAB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

12
Petitioner,
13
v.

ECF NO. 13, 19, 29

14
15

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, et al.,

16

Respondents.

17
18

On December 13, 2013, Petitioner California Department of Health Care Services

19 (“DHCS”) filed a motion to remand. (ECF No. 13.) On February 20, 2014, the magistrate judge
20 assigned to this action issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that the motion
21 to remand be granted. (ECF No. 29.) The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that
22 any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On March 5, 2014, real parties in interest
23 L.M. (by and through her guardian ad litem Jordan M.), Jordan M. and David K. filed objections
24 to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 30.)
25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

26 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
27 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

As

28 discussed in the Findings and Recommendations, real parties in interest demonstrate that federal

1

1 issues may arise in this action. However, in order for jurisdiction to lie, a disputed question of
2 federal law must be a necessary element of the claim. Such dispute is not present.
3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The February 20, 2014 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN
FULL;

5
6

2.

DHCS’s motion to remand is GRANTED (ECF No. 13);

7

3.

This action is REMANDED to Tuolumne County Superior Court and the clerk is

8

DIRECTED to take necessary steps to remand this action to Tuolumne County

9

Superior Court;

10

4.

(ECF No. 19) and all pending matters and dates are VACATED; and

11
12

The January 30, 2014 motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot

5.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 10, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2