Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05575/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05575-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUTH THROWER, by and through her

Successor in Interest, Rosie Lee Mills;

ROSIE LEE MILLS; HELEN MILLS;

LORETTA EDDINGS; LASHAWN

THROWER; PERRY JOHNSON, JR.;

ELLEN MASON,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GRANCARE, LLC d/b/a VALE

HEALTHCARE CENTER; MARINER

HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT

COMPANY; MHC WEST HOLDING

COMPANY; MARINER HEALTH CARE,

INC.; REMY RHODES; and DOES 1-250,

Defendants

 /

No. C 15-05575 WHA

ORDER DENYING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Plaintiffs Ruth Thrower and others have filed an administrative motion seeking leave to

file a supplemental brief in support of their motion to remand this case to state court. Plaintiffs

assert that they want to add a discussion of a “written job description which further supports

that the joinder of the non-diverse administrator of Defendants’ facility Remy Rhodes was

proper and did not constitute fraudulent joinder, and Plaintiffs seeks [sic] to present this further

evidence to the Court in support of their motion for remand based on lack of diversity of

citizenship” (Dkt. No. 39 at 2). Plaintiffs also state that they seek to present the Court with

analysis of a 2008 decision from the Central District of California (Ribnick v. Sunrise Senior

Case 3:15-cv-05575-WHA Document 42 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Living, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-584 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2008) (Judge Andrew Guilford). Plaintiffs

did not attach these documents to their administrative motion.

Under Civil Local Rule 7–3(d), “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda,

papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” except to object to reply evidence

or to bring to the Court’s attention a judicial opinion published after the reply had been filed. 

Here, plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for their proposed late submission and thus

leave to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-05575-WHA Document 42 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2