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