Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00034/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00034-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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 - 09cv34-WQH-CAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXA MARQUEZ, BY AND THROUGH

HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv34-WQH-CAB

ORDER

vs.

RADY’S CHILDRENS HOSPITAL;

GURINDER DAHBIA; CHILDREN’S

SPECIALIST OF SAN DIEGO; ALLEN

SCHWARTZ; LINDA SCHWARTZ;

MAGDELINE DOHIL, AND DOES 1-40

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the motion to remand (Doc. 14) filed by Plaintiff Alexa

Marquez.

On December 8, 2008, Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against Rady’s

Children’s Hospital, Gurinder Dahbia, Children’s Specialist of San Diego, Allen Schwartz,

Linda Schwartz, Magdeline Dohil, and Martha Spitzer in the Superior Court of California for

the County of San Diego. (Doc. 1.) 

On January 9, 2009, the United States of America removed the case to this Court

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. 79(d)(2) because Defendant

Martha Spitzer is deemed an employee of the United States by the Federally Supported Health

Centers Assistance Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 233(g)-(n). (Doc. 1.) 

Case 3:09-cv-00034-WQH-CAB Document 15 Filed 04/10/09 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 - 09cv34-WQH-CAB

On January 9, 2009, the United States filed a motion to substitute the United States of

America for Defendant Martha Spitzer pursuant to the Federally Supported Health Centers Act

and the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 4.) 

On January 15, 2009, this Court issued an order substituting the United States as the

defendant and dismissing Martha Spitzer from this action with prejudice. (Doc. 8.)

On January 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant United

States pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). (Doc. 10.) The United States is no

longer a party to this action. 

On February 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).

(Doc. 14.) No opposition to the motion to remand has been filed by any of the remaining

defendants. 

RULING OF THE COURT

A federal district court “has discretion under the doctrine of pendant jurisdiction to

remand a properly removed case to state court when all federal law claims in the action have

been eliminated and only pendant state law claims remain.” Carnegie-Mellon University v.

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 345 (1988). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are

eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendant jurisdiction

doctrine – judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity – will point toward declining

to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. at 350 n. 7. In this case,

Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the claims involving the United States, whose status as the

defendant in this action provided the only basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The Court

concludes that “the values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity” point toward

declining to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 14) is

GRANTED.

DATED: April 10, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00034-WQH-CAB Document 15 Filed 04/10/09 Page 2 of 2