Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00858/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00858-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR CEJA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

DELANO REGIONAL MEDICAL )

CENTER; SANDRA SCHAEFER, M.D., )

and DOES 1-10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0858 AWI DLB

ORDER REGARDING

DISMISSAL OF DELANO

REGIONAL MEDICAL

CENTER

ORDER REMANDING

ACTION

BACKGROUND

This action was commenced in Kern County Superior Court and was removed to this

court because the United States was a Defendant. On August 7, 2006, pursuant to the parties’

stipulation, the United States was dismissed from this action. On September 6, 2006, Plaintiff

and Defendant Delano Regional Medical Center filed a stipulation of dismissal of this action as

to Delano Regional Medical Center. On September 26, 2006, Plaintiff field a request to remand

this action to the Kern County Superior Court.

RULE 41(a)(1) DISMISSAL 

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a

notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or

of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a

stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is

without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication

upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of

Case 1:06-cv-00858-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.

Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after service of an

answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who have appeared,

although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan

Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir.

1986). Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in

open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

41(a)(1)(ii); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the

defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal

“automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” 

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493,

1506 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Because a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice as to Defendant Delano

Regional Medical Center has been filed and signed by all parties who have made an appearance,

as required by Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), this case has terminated as to Defendant Delano Regional

Medical Center. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(ii).

REMAND

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441 allowed for removal of this action because the United States was a

defendant. However, the United States and all served defendants have been dismissed from this

action. “[P]endant jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion not of plaintiff's right. Its justification

lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants; if these are

not present, a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims.” United

Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Because the United States is no longer a

defendant, there remains no independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The court may decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the federal claims are dismissed before

trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726; Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach &

Case 1:06-cv-00858-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir.1990).

Because this cause of action was removed from state court, the court may remand the

remaining state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); International

Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87

(1991); Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); Harrell v. 20th Century

Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991). The decision to remand is discretionary and the

court should determine what “will best accommodate the values of economy, convenience,

fairness, and comity. . . .” Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 351; Harrell, 934 F.2d at 205. In this

case, comity and convenience compel remanding this action to state court because this action is

based on California law. In addition, because this action is still at its early stages in this court

and the remaining defendants have yet to be served, the parties would not be prejudiced by

remand. When a single federal-law claim in an action is eliminated at an early stage of the

litigation, the court has a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction. 

Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 351. Thus, the remaining action shall be remanded back to state

court. 

ORDER

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to dismiss Defendant Delano Regional Medical

Center from this action in light of the filed and signed Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)

Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s request for remand is GRANTED;

3. This case IS REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a certified copy of this order upon the

Kern County Superior Court, and to serve the parties in the usual manner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00858-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3