E.R. v. Sutter Davis Hospital et al
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/13/2017 DENYING 70 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (Kirksey Smith, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
E.R., a minor, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem,
CAROLYN YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
CIV. NO. 2:14-2053 WBS CKD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO REMAND
v.
SUTTER DAVIS HOSPITAL; SUTTER
WEST WOMEN’S HEALTH; SUSAN
MAAYAH, M.D.;
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS.
----oo0oo---This medical malpractice action was removed to federal
24
court by the United States on September 4, 2014, pursuant to 42
25
U.S.C. § 233(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
26
Removal was proper because defendant Sutter Davis Hospital
27
(“Sutter Davis”) filed a third-party complaint alleging damages
28
resulting from the performance of medical functions by third1
(Docket No. 1.)
1
party defendants Salud Clinic, Amelia Bauermann, and Tamara
2
Johnson, who are deemed employees of the Public Health Service
3
under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act, 42
4
U.S.C. § 233(c).1
5
parties have agreed, that jurisdiction was predicated upon
6
federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Federal
7
Tort Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233.
8
(Joint Status Report); Docket No. 25 (Scheduling Order).)
9
court granted summary judgment for the United States on December
10
13, 2016, and thus the United States is no longer a party in this
11
case.
12
Thus, the court previously held, and the
(See, e.g., Docket No. 23
The
Plaintiff now moves to remand the case to state court,
13
arguing that because the United States is no longer a party, this
14
court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
15
ignores the court’s discretion to exercise supplemental
16
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim under 28 U.S.C. §
17
1367(a).
18
Such contention
Because the court dismissed the claims against the
19
United States, it no longer has original jurisdiction over this
20
action.
21
over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action
22
within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
23
case or controversy under Article III of the United States
24
Constitution.”
25
party claims for indemnity and contribution against the United
26
27
28
1
However, federal courts have “supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Here, Sutter Davis’s third-
The United States was substituted as cross-defendant in
place of Salud Clinic, Amelia Bauermann, and Tamara Johnson
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 233(c). (Notice of Removal (Docket No.
1-6).)
2
1
States were clearly related to plaintiff’s state claim against
2
defendants Sutter Davis, Sutter West Women’s Health, and Dr.
3
Susan Maayah such that they formed part of the same case or
4
controversy under Article III.
5
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claim.
6
Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc., 344 F.3d 931,
7
936—38 (9th Cir. 2003) (where state complaint was removed based
8
on federal question jurisdiction, the district court’s
9
supplemental jurisdiction was not destroyed by dismissal of the
10
11
Accordingly, the court has
See
federal claim).
A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental
12
jurisdiction . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all
13
claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”
14
1367(c); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999,
15
1001 n.3 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (explaining that a district
16
court may decide sua sponte to decline to exercise supplemental
17
jurisdiction).
18
case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial,
19
the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent
20
jurisdiction doctrine——judicial economy, convenience, fairness,
21
and comity——will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction
22
over the remaining state-law claims.”
23
Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).
24
28 U.S.C. §
The Supreme Court has stated that “in the usual
Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v.
Here, although comity may weigh in favor of declining
25
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, fairness weighs equally
26
toward both fora as the state and federal courts are equally
27
convenient for the parties and there is no reason to doubt that a
28
state court would provide an equally fair adjudication of the
3
1
issues.
2
heavily in favor of this court continuing to exercise
3
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.
However, the other pendent jurisdiction factors weigh
4
This case has been pending before the court for more
5
than two years and has been subject to extensive litigation,
6
including three dispositive motion hearings resulting in written
7
opinions on both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary
8
judgment.2
9
pertained to Sutter Davis’s third-party complaint.
The court recognizes that these motions specifically
Nevertheless,
10
all parties participated in those hearings, and the court has
11
gained a strong familiarity with the facts of this case through
12
those hearings and motions.3
13
its conclusion, with the discovery deadline having passed, the
14
pretrial conference coming up later this month, and trial set for
15
two months from now.
16
Moreover, this case is almost to
The court also notes that this trial date was set
17
almost two years ago.
18
weigh strongly in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
19
Accordingly, the court will continue to exercise supplemental
20
jurisdiction and will deny plaintiff’s motion to remand.
21
Thus, judicial economy and convenience
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff E.R.’s motion to
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The assigned magistrate judge also held a hearing on
and issued a written opinion on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions
against Sutter Medical Group, Susan Maayah, M.D., and their
attorneys.
This court also presided over the related case Lara v.
Sutter Davis Hospital, Civ. No. 1:12-2407-WBS-CKD, which was
filed by plaintiff’s mother and was litigated for a year and a
half before being voluntarily dismissed after the parties’
settlement.
4
3
1
remand be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
2
Dated:
January 13, 2017
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
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?