Curtis v. LHP Pocatello LLC et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERD: 1. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32 ) is GRANTED as to Counts One, Two, and Three, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Count Four is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of s ubject matter jurisdiction. 3. The Motion Hearing set for November 13, 2017, at 1:30 PM before Judge DavidC. Nye is VACATED. 4. The Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 34 ) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 5. The Court will enter judgment separately in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SUE ELLEN CURTIS,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00444-DCN
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
LHP POCATELLO, LLC, d/b/a
PORTNEUF MEDICAL CENTER, and
POCATELLO HOSPITALL, LLC, d/b/a
PORTNEUF MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants LHP Pocatello, LLC and Pocatello Hospital, LLC have filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment in this wrongful termination case. Dkt. 32. The Motion is fully
briefed and ripe for decision. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that
the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of
avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the motion without oral
argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court grants the Motion in part and dismisses the remainder of the claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Sue Ellen Curtis filed this suit on September 23, 2015. In her Complaint
Curtis asserted four causes of action: (1) age discrimination in violation of Idaho and
federal law; (2) sex discrimination in violation of Idaho and federal law; (3) religious
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER– PAGE 1
discrimination in violation of Idaho and federal law; and (4) wrongful termination in
violation of public policy.
Defendants filed the pending motion for summary judgment on April 24, 2017. In
her reply brief, Curtis “concede[d] that she has insufficient facts to support her age,
gender, and religious discrimination claims.” Dkt. 33, at 9. Summary judgment is,
therefore, appropriate on these three causes of action. Accordingly, the Court dismisses
those claims with prejudice. The only claim that remains is Curtis’s claim for wrongful
termination in violation of public policy, which is “a state-based claim” actionable under
Idaho law. See Harris v. Treasure Canyon Calcuim Co., 132 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1239 (D.
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). It is appropriate for the Court to
“raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the
pendency of the action.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). In
her Complaint, Curtis asserted that this Court had federal question and supplemental
jurisdiction over her claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(4), and 1367. Dkt. 1, at
2. After dismissing all of Curtis’s federal claims, this Court no longer has federal
question jurisdiction, and, in turn, supplemental jurisdiction, over any of the claims in
this case. The Court, therefore, must dismiss this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction unless it has diversity jurisdiction over the remaining claim. See Peralta v.
Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In civil cases, subject matter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER– PAGE 2
jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”).
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Complete diversity exists
if none of the plaintiffs is a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants. Caterpillar,
519 U.S. at 68; Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). A corporation is a
citizen of the state “by which it has been incorporated” and the state “where is has its
principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v.
Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 1997).
In her Complaint, Curtis asserted that “at all times relevant to [her] claims, [she]
was a resident of Bannock County, Idaho.” Dkt. 1, at 2. She also asserted that “Defendant
LHP Pocatello, LLC d/b/a Portneuf Medical Center, is a Delaware limited liability
company, with its principal place of business in Pocatello, Idaho.” Id. Both Curtis and at
least one Defendant are both citizens of Idaho. Therefore, complete diversity does not
exist in this case. Accordingly, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this
case and must dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERD:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED as to Counts
One, Two, and Three, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER– PAGE 3
2. Count Four is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter
3. The Motion Hearing set for November 13, 2017, at 1:30 PM before Judge David
C. Nye is VACATED.
4. The Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 34) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
5. The Court will enter judgment separately in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
DATED: October 26, 2017
David C. Nye
U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER– PAGE 4
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?