Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04452/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04452-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY S. FRUCIANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM LUE, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-cv-04452-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM AGAINST DR. 

KARPMAN AND UROLOGICAL 

SURGEONS OF NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Anthony Fruciano representing himself alleges discrimination under the Unruh 

Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with medical treatment he sought from three separate

health care providers in 2016. Although Plaintiff filed this action in the Alameda County Superior 

Court, the University of California Regents, who were previously named as a defendant and 

employed Dr. Lue, another defendant in this action, removed the action to this court based on 

federal question jurisdiction. After several rounds of motion practice, only three defendants 

remain: Dr. Lue, Dr. Karpman, and Dr. Karpman’s employer the Urological Surgeons of Northern 

California. Plaintiff pleads a Section 1983 claim against Dr. Lue and an Unruh Act claim against 

Dr. Karpman and the Urological Surgeons of Northern California. Because the Court has concerns 

regarding its subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim against Dr. Karpman and the 

Urological Surgeons of Northern California, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to 

why the claim against Dr. Karpman and the Urological Surgeons of Northern California should 

not be remanded to state court.

Case 3:18-cv-04452-JSC Document 116 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

When a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to 

satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 

1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded back to state 

court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Here, while the Court has original action over Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Dr. 

Lue, the Court only has jurisdiction over the state law claim against Dr. Karpman and the 

Urological Surgeons of Northern California if it has supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1367. Section 1367(a) states in relevant part that:

in any civil action of which the district courts have original 

jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction 

over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within 

such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or 

controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such 

supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder 

or intervention of additional parties.

Thus, Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Karpman and the Urological Surgeons of Northern California 

must arise from the same “case or controversy” as his claim against Dr. Lue; that is, “the state and 

federal claims [must] ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l 

Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997). Given that Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Lue and 

Dr. Karpman arise from completely separate medical encounters, which occurred in May and July 

2016, respectively, they do not appear to arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact. 

There is in no evidentiary overlap between the claims, they are not temporally related, and the two 

physicians work for different medical practices. 

Accordingly, the parties are Ordered to Show Cause as to why the state law claim against 

Dr. Karpman and the Urological Surgeons of Northern California should not be remanded back 

to the Alameda County Superior Court. Any party who wishes to show cause shall filed a 

written response to this Order by July 12, 2019. If neither party responds to this Order, the Court 

will remand the claim against Dr. Karpman and the Urological Surgeons of Northern California

to the Alameda County Superior Court.

The July 11, 2019 hearing on Dr. Karpman and the Urological Surgeons of Northern 

Case 3:18-cv-04452-JSC Document 116 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

California’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04452-JSC Document 116 Filed 06/28/19 Page 3 of 3