Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02775/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02775-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1446mm Notice of Removal - Medical Malpractice

---

1

3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELFINA MOTA; PAUL 

IHEANACHOR; CORRINA SALAZAR;

 Plaintiffs,

v.

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT 

dba TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER; 

SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; VISTA 

COMMUNITY CLINIC; DAVID SEIF, 

M.D.; ANESTHESIA SERVICE 

MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 

through 31, inclusive;

 Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING UNITED STATES’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;

(2) DENYING DEFENDANTS DAVID 

SEIF, M.D., AND ANESTHESIA 

SERVICE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND 

(3) SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

(Doc. Nos. 6, 16)

Defendant United States of America (“United States”) brings its motion to dismiss 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction alleging Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their 

administrative remedies. (See Doc. No. 16-1.) Plaintiffs Delfina Mota, Paul Iheanachor, 

and Corrina Salazar filed a joint notice of non-opposition to United States’ motion to 

Case 3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS Document 23 Filed 04/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS

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

dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 21.)1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds this 

matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS the United States’ motion to 

dismiss, DENIES as moot Defendants David Seif, M.D. and Anesthesia Service Medical 

Group, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and sua sponte REMANDS the case for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Mota, Iheanachor, and Salazar (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action 

against the five named Defendants, Tri-City Healthcare District dba Tri-City Medical 

Center (“Tri-City Medical Center”), Sandra Lopez, M.D. (“Lopez”), Vista Community 

Clinic (“VCC”), David Seif, M.D. (“Seif”), and Anesthesia Service Medical Group, Inc.

(“ASMG”) (collectively “Defendants”), in connection with the treatment and care received 

by Mota during the labor and delivery of her child, on or about November 16, 2017. (See 

generally Doc. No. 1-3.) Specifically, this case involves the performance of a C-section on 

Mota. (Id.)

This action was originally filed in California Superior Court, County of San Diego, 

Case No. 37-2018-00034758-CU-MM-NC. The United States subsequently certified 

Defendants Lopez and VCC under 42 U.S.C. § 233(c) and (g), respectively, as acting 

within the scope of their employment and substituted in place of Lopez and VCC. On 

December 10, 2018, the United States removed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 233(c) to this 

Court.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction 

only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian 

Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Under 42 U.S.C. § 233(c), “[u]pon a certification 

by the Attorney General that the defendant was acting in the scope of his employment at 

the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, any such civil action or proceeding 

 

1 Plaintiffs filed a single, joint notice of non-opposition three times. All subsequent citations to the joint 

notice of non-opposition will be to the first, Doc. No. 19, only.

Case 3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS Document 23 Filed 04/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS

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

commenced in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the 

Attorney General to the district court of the United States of the district and division 

embracing the place wherein it is pending and the proceeding deemed a tort action brought 

against the United States under [28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(“FTCA”)].”

Section 2675(a) of the FTCA requires any claimant to first file a claim with the 

appropriate federal agency and await final denial before commencing a civil action. 28 

U.S.C. § 2675(a); Burns v. United States, 764 F.2d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1985). The section 

2675(a) requirement “is jurisdictional in nature and may not be waived.” Jerves v. United 

States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Actions filed prior to final 

denial of the claim by the agency, or prior to allowing six months to elapse from the date 

of filing the administrative claim, fail to meet this requirement and are properly dismissed 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id.

II. DISCUSSION

Under section 2675(a) of the FTCA, made applicable to this action by 42 U.S.C. § 

233(c), Plaintiffs were required file an administrative claim with the appropriate agency; 

here, the Department of Health and Human Services. The United States asserts Plaintiffs 

did not exhaust their administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 16-2 at 2.) In response, Plaintiffs 

filed a joint notice of non-opposition to the United States’ motion noting they have a 

pending administrative claim, (Doc. No. 19), impliedly acknowledging they have not met 

the FTCA’s jurisdictional requirement. Finding that this motion is unopposed and 

procedurally proper, the Court GRANTS this motion to dismiss the United States from 

this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 16.) 

Consequently, with dismissal of the United States from this action, this Court no 

longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims and must remand the 

matter. See Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that a district 

court may “remand at any time prior to final judgment for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction”). The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the present action

Case 3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS Document 23 Filed 04/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS

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

as all causes of action arise out of California state law. See 38 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, 

the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the present action. For a federal court to 

exercise diversity jurisdiction there must be “complete diversity” between the parties and 

the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, neither 

the first amended complaint nor the notice of removal allege jurisdictional facts to satisfy 

the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. (See generally Doc. No. 1.) Thus, the Court 

lacks jurisdiction over the matter. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the United States’ motion to dismiss, DENIES

Defendants Seif and ASMG’s motion to dismiss as moot and sua sponte REMANDS this 

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California County of 

San Diego. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02775-AJB-NLS Document 23 Filed 04/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4