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