Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02101/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02101-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKI DALE DIERENFELDT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL EUREKA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02101-WHO 

ORDER DECLINING 

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION; 

REMANDING CASE TO HUMBOLDT 

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Having dismissed the federal defendant from this case – whose presence was the only hook 

for federal jurisdiction asserted in the Notice of Removal and the Second Amended Complaint 

(Dkt. No. 56) – I issued an Order to Show Cause why I should not decline supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state law claims and remand. 

Defendant Blue opposed remand on the basis of efficiency, but his motion for summary 

judgment was not opposed and was granted. He is no longer in the case. 

Plaintiffs responded, but did not address why I should exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 

Dkt. No. 102. Instead, they asserted that diversity jurisdiction exits because plaintiffs, apparently, 

now live in Missouri and defendants reside in unspecified “different states.” Dkt. No. 102. 

However, diversity of citizenship was not raised in the Notice of Removal nor in plaintiffs’ 

Second Amended Complaint filed in June 2018. SAC, Dkt. No. 56. In fact, in their SAC 

plaintiffs expressly pleaded that, “Plaintiffs, at all times herein mentioned were, citizens of and 

residents within the State of California, and the Defendants, and each of them, are now, and at all 

times herein mentioned were, citizens of and residents within the State of California.” SAC ¶ 3. 

Diversity jurisdiction is determined at the time a complaint is filed or removed to federal court, 

and cannot be based on citizenship changes that post-date the filing of the complaint or notice of 

removal. Chavez-Lavagnino v. Motivation Educ. Training, Inc., 714 F.3d 1055, 1056 (8th Cir. 

Case 3:18-cv-02101-WHO Document 104 Filed 05/07/19 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

2013) (“The jurisdiction of a federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) depends on the citizenship of 

the parties at the time the action is commenced.”); see also Rutter Group Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. 

Pro. Before Trial Ch. 2C-5 at § 2:1577.

As I have not invested a significant amount of time in this case and the only claims are 

state law medical malpractice and loss of consortium claims that were originally filed in Humboldt 

County Superior Court, I will not continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in 

this case. This action is HEREBY REMANDED to Humboldt County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2019

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02101-WHO Document 104 Filed 05/07/19 Page 2 of 2