Dotson v. United States Of America et al

Filing 82

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO DISMISS AND REMAND; RESETTING DATE FOR PENDING MOTION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2011)

Dotson v. United States Of America et al

Doc. 82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff filed this medical malpractice case on September 11, 2008. The defendants included the United States (who operated a health center), and four physicians who treated or were involved in the treatment of plaintiff. On February 25, 2011, defendant United States filed a motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 68. On March 3, 2011, plaintiff settled her claims with the United States. See Docket No. 78 at 2. The motion for summary judgment, therefore, is DENIED as moot. On March 4, 2011, the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is currently pending and set for hearing on April 8, 2011. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the pending motion for judgment as a matter of law. Instead, on March 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss and remand this case to the Superior Court for Humboldt County. Docket No. 78. The defendants oppose that request, arguing that it would be fundamentally unfair to require them to return to state court to restart this case where defendants have already complied with Rule 26 expert discovery requirements and have briefed their motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Court has considered the arguments and finds that the balance of equities weighs in favor of the Court retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This case has been v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. / MALINDA DOTSON, Plaintiff, No. C 08-04291 SI ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO DISMISS AND REMAND; RESETTING DATE FOR PENDING MOTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pending in this Court since September 2008. The parties have been required to comply with all of the Rule 26 discovery requirements. Fact discovery closed on September 1, 2010 and expert discovery closed on March 18, 2011. In these circumstances, the Court believes that allowing the case to continue in this Court serves judicial economy and fairness to the parties and denies the motion to dismiss and remand.1 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to dismiss and remand is DENIED. The pending motion for judgment as a matter of law is hereby reset for hearing on May 6, 2011. Any opposition to that motion must be filed on or before April 15, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2011 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

It is also unclear whether the Court could remand this case to Humboldt County as the complaint in this case was filed in this Court in the first instance. While a prior case was filed in state court and then removed to this Court, that case was dismissed for failure to exhaust. See Case No. 081861 JCS. 2

1