Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03564/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03564-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEANNIE ALDERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03564-SI 

ORDER RE: HEARING ON 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 36

On February 2, 2015, defendant Kenneth Susman, M.D. filed a motion to dismiss the 

complaint on statute of limitations grounds. A hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is 

scheduled for March 31, 2015, at 2 p.m. 

Defendant's motion argues that plaintiff’s medical negligence claim against him is barred 

by the statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5 and that the 

limitation period has not been tolled. Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s claims against him are 

not saved by the relation back doctrine because, inter alia, that doctrine would only apply to the 

2014 complaint in this case, and the 2014 complaint was filed after the expiration of the statute of 

limitations. See Dkt. 36 at 10:11-27. Plaintiff's opposition addresses equitable tolling and also

argues that defendant should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations, but does not 

address the relation back arguments.

It is the Court's tentative view that equitable tolling and estoppel do not apply here and 

thus that plaintiff's claims against defendant Susman are untimely unless those claims relate back 

Case 3:14-cv-03564-SI Document 42 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to the filing of the 2013 complaint in 13-4663 SI. Accordingly, the Court directs plaintiff's 

counsel to be prepared to address the relation back doctrine at the March 31, 2015 hearing. 

Counsel may submit additional authority on this issue either by letter brief prior to the hearing or 

at the hearing.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2015

________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03564-SI Document 42 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 2