Staggs et al v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. et al

Filing 348

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/29/2022. Not later than thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Order, the parties are ordered to file additional briefing as set forth within this Order. This written order supersedes the briefing requirement the Court set forth on the record at the hearing on October 27, 2022. (Deutsch, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LINNIE STAGGS, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-00414-MCE-KJN

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

In light of the pending Motions to Withdraw Consent to Magistrate Judge

18

Jurisdiction and Reconsideration, ECF Nos. 327–28, and the hearing on those matters

19

held on October 27, 2022, the Court finds that further briefing is necessary. Not later

20

than thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Order, the parties are ordered to file

21

additional briefing on each of following questions. Each brief shall not exceed twenty

22

(20) pages; the Court will not consider any filing that exceeds this page limit.1

23

1.

Zachary Staggs and Alexa Wintemberg (collectively, “Nominal

24

Defendants”) were named in this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

25

§§ 377.60 and 382 without seeking leave of this Court. Part of the reason for the delay

26

in considering the issues that have now arisen is that joinder of Nominal Defendants was

27
28

1 This written order supersedes the briefing requirement the Court set forth on the record at the
hearing on October 27, 2022.

1

1

never formally presented to the Court for consideration. In any event, this is federal

2

court. Explain whether the Court should consider Nominal Defendants’ joinder under

3

California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Is

4

there a basis in federal law that permits these Nominal Defendants to be joined? Under

5

federal law, would they be considered involuntary plaintiffs or defendants? Does the fact

6

that Plaintiffs did not even attempt to serve Nominal Defendants until this action had

7

been pending for over a decade affect the propriety of their joinder under federal law?

8

Relatedly, was service on Ms. Wintemberg proper when she was served before she was

9

individually substituted into this action?

10

2.

Assuming Nominal Defendants are properly joined and permitted to

11

remain in this action, how is this Court supposed to try a case with involuntary parties?

12

More specifically, from a practical perspective, how exactly do the parties anticipate the

13

trial will be conducted? Provide a roadmap for how a federal court is logistically

14

supposed to conduct a trial when two parties refuse to appear. For example, how do

15

you plan to stipulate to evidence—or anything else—at trial if the parties cannot get

16

Nominal Defendants’ approval to any stipulations? In addition, how do you plan to

17

introduce evidence as to Nominal Defendants’ damages? How will you do this when

18

Nominal Defendants decline to participate?

19

3.

According to Plaintiffs, Ms. Wintemberg is on active duty in the military.

20

Does the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act preclude the entry of default judgment against

21

her? Can this Court move forward with a trial when a non-participating Nominal

22

Defendant is serving in the military? How will it do that?

23

4.

Given the complexity and confusion trying the wrongful death claim is

24

adding to this case, why should the Court not decline to exercise supplemental

25

jurisdiction over that cause of action and proceed to trial on the remaining claims? More

26

specifically, a state law claim is now dictating how a federal case is tried. Why is this not

27

a compelling circumstance that justifies dismissing this cause of action to be tried in

28

state court?
2

1

5.

If Nominal Defendants are dismissed from this action or the wrongful death

2

claim is dismissed, will remaining Plaintiffs still consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction

3

for trial?

4

6.

5
6

Is there any other basis to dismiss Nominal Defendants for refusing to

appear in this action?
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: October 29, 2022

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