Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00261/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00261-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUZ YESENIA PONCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVENTISTS MEDICAL CENTER –

HANFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00261-NONE-EPG

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

REMANDING TO STATE COURT

(Doc. No. 6)

Plaintiff Luz Yesenia Ponce filed this action on July 23, 2019 in Kings County Superior 

Court. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Defendant United States of America timely removed. (See id. at 1–3.) 

The United States substituted in this action in the place of defendant David Cryns, D.O., pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 233(c) because defendant Cryns was a deemed employee of the Public Health 

Service and was acting within the scope of such employment at the time of the incidents giving 

rise to the action. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) In this action, plaintiff alleges medical malpractice against 

defendants in connection with a sterilization procedure. (Doc. No. 1 at 6–9.)

On February 26, 2020, the United States moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 6 at 2–3.) The 

United States argues that plaintiff has not exhausted an administrative tort claim to the United 

States Department of Health and Human Services. (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the United States 

Case 1:20-cv-00261-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 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

requests that the court dismiss plaintiff’s claims against the United States without prejudice and 

remand plaintiff’s claims against Adventist Medical Center – Hanford to state court. (Id.) On 

March 17, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the granting of the United States’ 

motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 9.)

Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint based on plaintiff’s statement of nonopposition to the pending motion to dismiss. See Way v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-

cv-02244-TLN-KJN, 2019 WL 1405599, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) (granting unopposed 

motions to dismiss where plaintiff filed statement of non-opposition). This dismissal is without

prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED 

and the claims against the United States are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This action 

is hereby remanded to the Kings County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00261-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 2