Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lindsey v. Palomar Medical Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 25, 2008

ANTHONY LINDSEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO THE UNITED STATES AND REMANDING TO STATE COURT AS TO REMAINING CLAIMS

This medical malpractice action was initially filed in San Diego County Superior Court against Defendants Palomar Medical Center, Parmjit Singh, M.D. and Neighborhood Healthcare. The case was removed to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) as deemed to have been brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), as well as pursuant to the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233(c). Upon removal, the United States substituted into the case in place of Defendants Parmjit Singh, M.D. and Neighborhood Healthcare because Dr. Singh was employed by Neighborhood Healthcare, an entity deemed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be a United States employee for purposes of the FTCA. Shortly thereafter, the United States filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the FTCA. Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition. Accordingly, the motion of the United States to dismiss is GRANTED as unopposed, and all claims asserted in this action against the United States are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Upon dismissal of the United States, remaining in the case are California tort law claims against Palomar Medical Center for medical malpractice and loss of consortium. Having dismissed all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). Upon consideration of "[t]he values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity," see Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Page), 24 F.3d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir. 1994), the court finds they do not support continuing supplemental jurisdiction. The remaining claims are therefore REMANDED to San Diego County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080125

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.