Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06338/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06338-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEN-MEI YOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES W. OSTROFF, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-6338 EMC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING

(Docket No. 7)

Previously, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs Wen-Mei You and Hongzhi Sun’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissing their complaint without prejudice. The

Court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because, based on the allegations in the complaint,

Plaintiffs alleged only state law claims but there was a lack of complete diversity among the parties. 

The Court gave Plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint or the case would be dismissed

with prejudice. See Docket No. 4. Plaintiffs never filed an amended complaint. 

Subsequently, Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Court (dated February 1 and filed February 4,

2008), stating that “[w]e [are] worried now that the time limit of suing as passed” and asking the

Court to “write a letter [to] prove that we did file before [the] due date” so that “we don’t loose [sic]

our legal right to go on [with] the litigation.” Docket No. 5. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request

because it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See Docket No. 6 (“Because it is

without jurisdiction, this Court cannot decree whether the statute of limitations might ban a suit filed

in state court. That would be for the state court to decide.”).

Case 3:07-cv-06338-EMC Document 8 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Now, Plaintiffs have filed a motion before this Court asking for equitable tolling. As the

Court stated in its previous order, it cannot provide Plaintiffs with any relief because it does not have

subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Plaintiffs appear to have filed a lawsuit in state court

concerning the same claims. The issue of whether equitable tolling applies is to be decided by the

state court and not this Court.

This order disposes of Docket No. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06338-EMC Document 8 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 3
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEN-MEI YOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES W. OSTROFF, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-6338 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Hongzhi Sun

3700 Cabrillo Street, 104

San Francisco, CA 94121

Wenmei You

3700 Cabrillo Street, 104

San Francisco, CA 94121

Dated: April 3, 2008 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-06338-EMC Document 8 Filed 04/03/08 Page 3 of 3