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)
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?