Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00474-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 17, 2014, Plaintiffs Dorothea Emmons and Lisa Stapelton (“Plaintiffs”) and 

Defendants Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Quest Diagnostics Incorporated of Nevada, 

and Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute (collectively “Defendants” or “Quest”), filed a stipulation

agreeing to add Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, as a named Defendant in 

this Action. (Doc. 34). Prior to this stipulation, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand this action to the 

Stanislaus County Superior Court. (Doc. 6). On February 12, 2014, this Court recommended that 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand should be granted because the jurisdictional allegations contained in the 

complaint and removal notice were deficient to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in this case. 

Without jurisdiction the Court cannot proceed on the parties’ stipulation to amend the 

complaint. “Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function 

DOROTHEA EMMONS and LISA 

STAPELTON,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL 

LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1:13-cv-0474 AWI-BAM

ORDER HOLDING THE PARTIES’ JOINT 

STIPULATION TO ADD QUEST 

DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED AS A 

NAMED DEFENDANT TO THE ACTION IN 

ABEYANCE PENDING A FINAL RULING 

ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND

(Doc. 34)

Case 1:13-cv-00474-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 02/20/14 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

remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 74 

U.S. 506, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1868). The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold 

matter “spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States” and is 

“inflexible and without exception.” Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). If 

the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, it must automatically dismiss the case. 

Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). 

This Court is not at liberty to override the jurisdictional question to approve the parties’ joint 

stipulation at this time. On February 12, 2014, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations 

granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 32). Objections to the Court’s 

Findings and Recommendations are due on or before March 4, 2014. (Doc. 32). After the objection 

period, the district judge will review this Court’s Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Once the ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is final, this Court will 

address the parties’ joint stipulation, if necessary. 

Accordingly, this Court holds in abeyance the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Add Quest 

Diagnostics Inc. as a named Defendant pending a final ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00474-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 2