Munoz v. Watsonville Community Hospital et al
Filing
90
ORDER GRANTING 79 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL SUMMONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INCORPORATED. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/6/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2017)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
RAFAEL MUNOZ, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-00932-BLF
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
WATSONVILLE COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL SUMMONS AND
EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE
DEFENDANT COMMUNITY HEALTH
SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
[Re: ECF 79]
12
13
Plaintiff filed this suit alleging that Defendants violated the Emergency Treatment and
14
Active Labor Act. Second Am. Compl., ECF 70. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for
15
additional summons and extension of time to serve Defendant Community Health Systems
16
Incorporated (“CHSI”). Mot., ECF 79.
17
According to Plaintiff, CHSI was properly added as a defendant in the First Amended
18
Complaint on January 11, 2016 as this Court refused to strike CHSI in a prior order in response to
19
a motion to strike. ECF 49, 69. Although CHSI has not been formally served, Plaintiff argues
20
that its alter-ego relationship with another defendant, Watsonville Community Hospital (“WCH”)
21
means that service should be deemed made. Mot. 3. Plaintiff further contends that CHSI has
22
submitted to this Court jurisdiction by allowing WCH counsel to make general appearances and
23
arguments on its behalf. Id. at 3-4.
24
In response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant WCH states that it does not oppose Plaintiff’s
25
motion for additional summons and an extension of time to serve. However, WCH disputes
26
various statements and arguments made in the motion. For example, WCH claims that Plaintiff’s
27
statements on the relationship between WCH and CHSI are incorrect and that the two defendants
28
are separate entities. WCH further asserts that Plaintiff’s argument that CHSI has submitted to
1
2
this Court’s jurisdiction is unsupported.
The Court need not address the factual and legal issues disputed by the parties in their
3
papers. Because WCH does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion for additional summons and extension
4
of time to serve CHSI, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk to issue summons.
5
Plaintiff shall file a valid proof of service for CHSI on or before March 6, 2017.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: January 6, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
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?