Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00415/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00415-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Medical Malpractice

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

07c433

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LINDSEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv415-L(RBB)

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

/ / / / /

Case 3:07-cv-00415-L-RBB Document 17 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07c433

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.

DATED: January 25, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00415-L-RBB Document 17 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2