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)

Download PDF
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?