UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 29, 2011
FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,
MICHAEL TATER-ALEXANDER, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT
On March 18, 2011, Plaintiff Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center filed a Complaint for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions. The case was removed to the Federal Court by Defendant Michael Tater-Alexander on March 22, 2011. On March 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the Fresno Superior Court on the ground that no federal question was involved. That motion was scheduled to be heard on May 6, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. Also on March 28, 2011, plaintiff applied for an order shortening time. That application was not opposed by defendant and the hearing on plaintiff's motion was reset for April 7, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., and heard at that time.
Carey H. Johnson appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and moving party, Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, and Andrew V. Stearns appeared on behalf of the defendant and responding party, Michael Tater-Alexander.
The Court having considered the Motion, the documents and records on file with the Court in this case, and the comments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court orders and finds as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion is granted without prejudice; this case is remanded to the Fresno Superior Court. The complaint, as pleaded, asserts no federal claim, and does not appear to disguise a federal claim by artful pleading. The Court finds no basis for jurisdiction over the complaint. While defendant argued that what occurred in this action might affect the case of Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan, et al., Action No. 1:08-cv-0372 OWW SKO, currently set for trial in this court, both parties agreed that the decisions of the Superior Court will not have any res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in the case of Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan, et al., and there shall be no comment about the pendency of this case before the jury in Tater v. Amerjan.
Events which are chronicled in the moving papers herein shall not be referred to before the jury in Tater v. Amerjan unless relevant to the issues in that case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.