Tulare Local Health Care District et al v. California Department of Health Care Services et al

Filing 17

ORDER re 4 MOTION to Remand to State Court. Respondents California Department of Health Care Services, et al. are ORDERED to submit a supplemental brief of no more than three (3) pages within seven (7) days pursuant to this order. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 8/18/2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

TULARE LOCAL HEALTH CARE
) Case No. 3:15-CV-02711-SC
DISTRICT, a California local
)
health care district, dba TULARE ) ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., ) BRIEFING
)
Petitioners,
)
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH )
CARE SERVICES, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)

16
17
Now before the Court is Petitioners Tulare Local Health Care

18
19

District, et al.'s ("Petitioners") motion for remand.

ECF No. 4

20

("Mot.").

21

Department of Health Care Services, et al.'s ("Respondents") assert

22

that "where an action in mandamus seeks to enforce federal law,

23

federal courts routinely retain jurisdiction."

24

("Opp'n") at 8.

25

examples of a federal court retaining jurisdiction over an action

26

in mandamus that did not involve the court's supplemental

27

///

28

///

In their opposition brief, Respondents California

ECF No. 14

Respondents' brief, however, fails to provide any

on the veracity of Respondents' assertion, the Court hereby ORDERS

3

Respondents to submit a supplemental brief of no more than three

4

(3) pages within seven (7) days of the date of this order.

5

supplemental brief should provide support for Respondents'

6

assertion and address no other issues.

7

response of no more than three (3) pages within seven (7) days of

8

United States District Court

jurisdiction.1

2

For the Northern District of California

1

the filing of Respondents' supplemental brief.

9

response should address Respondents' supplemental brief and no

10

Because Petitioners' motion turns, in large part,

The

Petitioners may file a

Petitioners'

other issues.

11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: August 18, 2015

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The cases cited by Respondents are inapposite. See City of Chi,
522 U.S. 156, 160 (1997) (involving claims brought under the
Illinois' Administrative Review Law); Vieux v. E. Bay Reg'l Park
Dist., 906 F.2d 1330, 1338 (9th Cir. 1990) (involving federal
claims and reviewing the petition for writ of mandate under the
court's supplemental jurisdiction); Yang v. Cal. Dept. of Social
Servs., 183 F.3d 953, 955 (1999) (involving federal claims).

2