Taylor v. Mendocino Community Health Clinic, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER REMANDING CASE.. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 5/16/2017. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 ISABELLA TAYLOR, Case No. 17-cv-01995-NJV Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER OF REMAND 10 11 LILY BINCKHAUS, D.D.S., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 14 This action was removed to this court on April 10, 2017, from the Superior Court of the 15 State of California, County of Mendocino. (Doc. 1.) On May 3, 2017, the court entered an Order 16 that substituted the United States in place of Defendants Mendocino Community Health Clinic, 17 Inc., Navneet Mansukhani, D.D.S., and Periza Zaninovic, D.D.S., and dismissed the claims 18 against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff had not exhausted 19 her administrative remedies. (Doc. 15). This left the Complaint with only state law claims against 20 Lily Binckhaus, D.D.S., the remaining Defendant. 21 On May 16, 2017, the court held a hearing to determine the status of the case and to 22 inquire as to whether the court retained subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the 23 remaining Defendant. At the hearing the parties stipulated that the court lacked subject matter 24 jurisdiction and that the case should be remanded to state court. 25 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only 26 over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 27 Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The removal statute requires remand “[i]f at any time before final 28 judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 1 Here the court lacked subject matter over the claims against the United States because they were 2 not exhausted. Thus, the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against 3 Lily Binckhaus, D.D.S. Accordingly, this matter is properly remanded to the state court. 4 5 For the above stated reasons it is ORDERED that this case shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Mendocino. 6 A separate judgment shall issue. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: May 16, 2017 ______________________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?