Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00734/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00734-1/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

ISAAC ACUNA, a minor, by and through)

his guardian ad litem, ADRIANA )

ACUNA, LEOBARDO ACUNA and )

ADRIANA ACUNA, Individually, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

COUNTY OF KERN, dba KERN )

MEDICAL CENTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:10-CV-00734 AWI JLT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND REMANDING

ACTION TO THE KERN

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

(Document #3)

BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Kern. The complaint names the County of Kern, Clinica Sierra

Vista (“Clinica”), Chibuike Enyereibe Anucha, M.D., and Karen E. Berk, R.N. as Defendants. 

The complaint alleges negligence by Defendants in their medical treatment of Adriana Acuna and

Isaac Acuna.

On April 27, 2010, the United States removed this action to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California. In the notice of removal, the United States provides

evidence that it is the proper Defendant instead of Defendants Clinica, Anucha, and Berk because

Clinica is a federally funded healthercare facility. As such, this court has jurisdiction over any

tort claims alleged against Defendants Clinica, Anucha, and Berk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1346(b).

Case 1:10-cv-00734-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 06/15/10 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

On May 4, 2010, the United States filed a motion to dismiss. The United States contends

that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). 

On June 1, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiffs concede that they did not comply with the FTCA. Plaintiffs agree that Defendants

Clinica, Anucha, and Berk should be dismissed without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

Title 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) provides that the FTCA is the exclusive remedy against the

United States for personal injury arising from actions by members of the Public Health Service. 

The FTCA’s coverage extends to employees of designated federally supported medical clinics. 

42 U.S.C. § 233(g). Section 233(c) provides for the removal of state court actions brought

against entities and their contracting physicians and health care providers who are deemed

employees of the federal Public Health Service. In this action, the United States has provided

evidence that Defendant Clinica is a federally supported medical clinic and Defendants Anucha,

and Berk were employees of a federally supported medical clinic. Thus, Section 233 applies to

this action, and Plaintiffs are required to comply with the FTCA.

Under the FTCA, an “action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States

for money damages” unless the claimant has first exhausted administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. §

2675(a). The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and must be interpreted strictly. Brady v.

United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9 Cir. 2000). To meet the exhaustion requirement, a th

claimant must have presented the claim in a timely manner to the “appropriate Federal agency.”

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Plaintiffs and the United States agree that Plaintiffs have not complied

with the FTCA. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to address Plaintiffs’ claims

concerning Defendants Clinica, Anucha, and Berk.

This action was removed to this court because the claims against Defendants Clinica,

Anucha, and Berk are really claims against the United States. Any civil action brought in a State

court of which a federal court has original jurisdiction may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00734-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 06/15/10 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

However, “[i]f at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A district court has “a duty to

establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties

raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960,

967 (9 Cir. 2004). In light of the dismissal of Defendants Clinica, Anucha, and Berk, this th

court’s sole basis for jurisdiction is no longer part of this action. The remaining claims against

Defendant County of Kern will be remanded back to the Superior Court.

ORDER

Accordingly the court ORDERS that:

1. The United States’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2. Defendants Clinica, Anucha, and Berk are DISMISSED from this action without

prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to remand this action to the Superior Court

of California for the County of Kern.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00734-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 3