Grego v. Kadlec Regional Medical Center et al
Filing
15
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION - denying as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (CC, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
8
ANDREW GREGO and MARIA
DOROSHCHUK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
11
12
13
14
NO: 4:16-CV-5150-RMP
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
KADLEC REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, a Washington non-profit
corporation; CARDON
HEALTHCARE NETWORK, LLC,
d/b/a/ Cardon Healthcare Network and
Cardon Outreach, a Delaware for-profit
corporation; and CARDON
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, a
Delaware for-profit corporation,
15
Defendants.
16
17
BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
18
Jurisdiction, ECF No. 7, by Defendants Cardon Healthcare Network, LLC
19
(“Cardon”) and Cardon Healthcare Holdings (“Cardon Holdings”). The Court has
20
reviewed Defendants’ motion, the remaining record, and the relevant law, and is
21
fully informed.
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ~ 1
1
Plaintiff Andrew Grego initiated a putative class action in this District on
2
November 14, 2016. Although Plaintiff’s claims were raised in his individual
3
capacity and “on behalf of all others similarly situated,” he stated only traditional
4
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) as a basis for federal subject
5
matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 1, 5. On December 19, 2016, Defendants
6
Cardon and Cardon Holdings moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the basis
7
that complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendant Kadlec Regional Medical
8
Center did not exist, given that both are citizens of Washington State.
9
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion. However, Plaintiff filed an
10
amended complaint on January 9, 2017. Plaintiff’s amended complaint named a
11
second Plaintiff, Maria Doroshchuk, and stated a new basis for federal subject
12
matter jurisdiction: the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). See ECF No. 8 at 6.
13
Defendant answered Plaintiffs’ complaint on January 31, 2017, denying the factual
14
allegations underlying Plaintiffs’ claim of CAFA jurisdiction for “lack[] of
15
sufficient information to form a belief.” ECF No. 9 at 6.
16
CAFA expanded diversity jurisdiction to include putative and certified class
17
actions in which the class comprises more than 100 members, at least one plaintiff
18
is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and the aggregate amount of all
19
class members’ claims exceeds $5 million. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff’s
20
amended complaint makes the requisite factual allegations to assert diversity
21
jurisdiction under CAFA. Given that Plaintiffs allege a facially viable basis for
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ~ 2
1
federal subject matter jurisdiction, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original
2
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be denied.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
4
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
5
Jurisdiction, ECF No. 7, is DENIED AS MOOT.
6
2. The caption in this matter is amended to include Plaintiff Maria
7
8
9
10
11
12
Doroshchuk.
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
counsel.
DATED March 3, 2017.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ~ 3
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?