Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00009-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Currently pending before the Court, and set for hearing on February 24, 2020, is Defendant 

the United States’ motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 6. However, on February 14, 2020, the parties 

filed the following stipulation:

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney of record, and the United States, by and through its 

attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against the United States 

without prejudice and to remand Plaintiffs’ claims against Kaweah Delta Healthcare District back 

to state court, based on the following:

(1) Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in Tulare County Superior Court on October 4, 2019, 

alleging that Kaweah Delta Healthcare District, Family Healthcare Network, and Dr. 

Elizabeth Enderton committed medical malpractice. Docket No. 1.

(2) Family Healthcare Network receives federal funding and both Family Healthcare 

Network and Dr. Enderton are deemed to be employees of the Public Health Service 

within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. See Federally

CRYSTAL RICHARDS, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

KAWEAH DELTA HEALTHCARE 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-009 AWI EPG

ORDER ON STIPULATION, ORDER 

VACATING HEARING, AND ORDER 

REMANDING MATTER 

(Doc. Nos. 6, 11)

Case 1:20-cv-00009-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4
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

Supported Health Centers Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233.

(3) Because Family Healthcare Network is deemed to be a federal employee, tort actions 

against the clinic and its employees acting within the scope of their employment arising 

from medical or related functions must be brought against the United States pursuant to 

the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § § 1346(b). 2671-80. See 42 

U.S.C. § 233(a).

(4) On January 2, 2020, the United States Attorney removed Plaintiffs’ lawsuit to this 

Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 233(c) and filed a certification that Family Healthcare 

Network and Dr. Enderton were acting within the scope of their employment at the 

time of the events giving rise to the action. See id.

(5) Thereafter, the United States was substituted as the federal defendant in place of 

Family Healthcare Network and Dr. Enderton by operation of law. Id.

(6) “A federal court’s jurisdiction to hear damage actions against the United States is 

limited by section 2675(a) of the FTCA.” Shipek v. United States, 752 F.2d 1352, 

1353 (9th Cir. 1985); accord Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000).

(7) Section 2675(a) requires, as a prerequisite to suing the United States, that a plaintiff 

must first present his or her claim to the appropriate federal agency. Shipek, 752 F.2d 

at 1353. The plaintiff must then receive a denial of the claim or await the passage of 

six months before filing suit. Id. “The plaintiff is permitted to sue the United States 

only after the claim is denied or six months have elapsed without final disposition by 

the agency.” Warren v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 724 F.2d 776, 778 (9th Cir. 

1984) (en banc); see also See Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(“Section 2675(a) establishes explicit prerequisites to the filing of suit against the 

Government in district court. It admits of no exceptions.”); McNeil v. United States, 

508 U.S. 106, 112-13 (1993) (stating that exhaustion of administrative remedies during 

the pendency of an action does not cure the failure to exhaust prior to filing the action).

(8) Plaintiffs filed an administrative tort claim with the United States Department of 

Health and Human Services on October 8, 2019. However, plaintiffs did not receive a 

Case 1:20-cv-00009-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4
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

decision from the agency on their administrative tort claim, or wait six months without 

a final disposition by the agency, prior to filing their Complaint. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the United States agree that the claims against the United 

States must be dismissed without prejudice and that the matter (Plaintiffs’ claims against Kaweah 

Delta Healthcare District) may be remanded to state court.

Dated: February 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Edward A. Olsen

EDWARD A. OLSEN

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for the United States of America

Dated: February 13, 2020 /s/ Daniel R. Baradat

DANIEL R. BARADAT

BARADAT & PABOOJIAN, INC.

Attorney for Plaintiffs

After consideration, and the absence of an opposition from Defendant Kaweah Delta 

Healthcare District, the Court will give effect to the stipulation.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEARBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 24, 2020 hearing date on the United States’ motion to dismiss is VACATED;

Case 1:20-cv-00009-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. The United States’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED as moot due to the 

February 14, 2020, stipulation;

3. The United States is DISMISSED without prejudice, as discussed in the February 14, 

2020 stipulation;

4. The matter is REMANDED forthwith to the Tulare County Superior Court; and 

5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00009-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4