Semplinski et al v. Hospital #1 and Healthcare Provider #1 et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 6 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment by Defendants Anonymous, FNP, Healthcare Provider #1 with respect to the claims against the United States, and Plaintiffs' claims against Hospital #1, Anonymous, PAC, and Anonymous Physician 1, M.D. are REMANDED to the Lake County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 4/5/2017. (cc: Cert copy to Lake County Superior Court) (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JAMES SEMPLINSKI and BETTY LOU )
SEMPLINSKI,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HOSPITAL #1, ANONYMOUS
)
PHYSICIAN 1, M.D., ANONYMOUS, )
PAC, and UNITED STATES OF
)
AMERICA,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Cause No. 2:16-cv-491

OPINION & ORDER
James Semplinski and his wife brought this negligence action in the Lake
County, Indiana Superior Court against several unnamed medical facilities and
providers. (DE 4.) They allege that Mr. Semplinski received negligent medical care from
the defendants and, as a result, incurred medical expenses, lost wages, and suffered
other damages. (Id.) The United States removed the case to federal court, arguing that
there was federal question jurisdiction because two defendants (NorthShore Health
Centers, Inc. and Shannon Gavin, FNP) were employees of the Public Health Service,
making this a case against the United States. (DE 2; see also DE 9.) The government now
moves to dismiss the claims against it on grounds that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act before filing suit. (DE 6; DE
7 at 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).) The Semplinskis agree that they failed to exhaust, and
they do not object to dismissal of the claim against the United States. (See DE 11 at 2.)

So the claim against the United States will be dismissed without prejudice.
But that’s not quite the end of the matter. Because the Semplinskis’ claims against
the federal government provided the basis for removal, I must also determine whether
this court still has jurisdiction over the claims against the other, still-to-be named
defendants. The Semplinskis argue those claims should be remanded to state court, and
I agree. Those claims arise under state law, and nothing in the complaint suggests the
remaining defendants are diverse from the plaintiffs, so this court no longer appears to
have subject matter jurisdiction. Nor does there appear to be any reason to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See generally Wright v. Assoc’d
Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1250 (7th Cir. 1994). For these reasons, the remaining claims
must be remanded.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint or,
Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (DE 6) is GRANTED with respect to the claims
against the United States, and Plaintiffs’ claims against Hospital #1, Anonymous, PAC,
and Anonymous Physician 1, M.D. are REMANDED to the Lake County Superior
Court.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: April 5, 2017.
s/ Philip P. Simon
JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2