Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01241/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Linda L. Gallup, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Alice Maria Nail; Dairyland Insurance

Company; Yuma Regional Medical

Center; City of Yuma Police and Fire

Departments; Rural Metro Corporation;

Pioneers Memorial Health Care District;

Imperial Cardiac Center; and United

States of America,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1241-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant United States of America has filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #4. The

Court will grant the motion and remand this action to state court.

I. Background. 

Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court against Alice Nail, Dairyland

Insurance Company, Yuma Regional Medical Center, City of Yuma Police and Fire

Departments, Rural Metro Corporation, Pioneers Memorial Health Care District, Imperial

Cardiac Center, and Clinicas De Salud Del Pueblo, Inc. (“Clinicas De Salud”). Plaintiff filed

an amended complaint, alleging that she was struck and injured by a car driven by Defendant

Nail, that Defendant Dairyland Insurance Company has failed to pay her for the injuries she

Case 2:07-cv-01241-DGC Document 11 Filed 08/24/07 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 -

sustained, and that the other Defendants falsified accident and medical reports. The amended

complaint asserts various state law tort claims. Dkt. #1-4.

Clinicas De Salud is a federally-assisted health care center. The United States

Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) deemed Clinicas De Salud to be an

employee of the Public Health Service of HHS. Dkt. #1 ¶ 3. The United States Attorney for

the District of Arizona, as designee for the Attorney General, certified that Clinicas De Salud

was acting within the scope of its federal employment status at all times relevant to this

action. Id. ¶ 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 233(c) and (g), the action

was removed to this Court and the United States was substituted as Defendant for Clinicas

De Salud. Dkt. ##1-2.

II. The United States’ Motion to Dismiss.

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), an action cannot be brought against the

United States unless “a claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate

Federal agency” and been denied recovery. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); see McNeil v. United

States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal

court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies.”); Brady v. United States,

211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The [FTCA] requirement of an administrative claim

is jurisdictional.”). The United States has submitted a declaration from HHS that no

such administrative claim has been filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. #5-2. The United States moves

to dismiss the complaint because Plaintiff has not met this jurisdictional requirement.

Dkt. ##4-5.

III. Plaintiff’s Failure to Respond.

The United States filed and served its motion on June 25, 2007. Dkt. #4. Pursuant

to the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff was required to file a response by

July 30, 2007. LRCiv 7.2(c), 12.1(b), 56.1(d); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). The Court extended

this deadline to August 17, 2007. Dkt. #9 at 2. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that her

failure to respond may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. Id. at 1-2 (citing

LRCiv 7.2(i); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)). The Court also warned

Case 2:07-cv-01241-DGC Document 11 Filed 08/24/07 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 -

Plaintiff that her failure to prosecute this action or comply with the Court’s orders may be

grounds for dismissal of the action. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992)). Despite these warnings and the extension of time, Plaintiff

has not responded to the motion.

Before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or follow a local rule or court order,

the Court must weigh five factors: the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,

the Court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, the policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions.

See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986)).

The first two factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff was served with the United States’

motion nearly two months ago. Plaintiff has had ample time to respond to the motion, but

has failed to do so. Because the Court and the public have a strong interest in judicial

efficiency and the prompt resolution of litigation, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action

weighs in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of

dismissal. Defendants forced to incur expenses and defend themselves in court are

prejudiced by a plaintiff’s failure to respond to motions or prosecute the case in a timely and

efficient manner. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth

factor, the Court concludes that a dismissal with prejudice would be unduly harsh. Deeming

Plaintiff’s lack of response a consent to the granting of the United States’ motion is, however,

an appropriate alternative sanction. The Court will grant the motion to dismiss.

IV. Supplemental Jurisdiction.

When all federal claims are eliminated early in a case and only state claims remain,

the district court has “a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.”

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 348 (1988); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Indeed, “it is generally preferable for a district court to remand remaining pendent claims to

state court[.]” Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991); see 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c). Upon dismissal of the claim against the United States, the state claims

Case 2:07-cv-01241-DGC Document 11 Filed 08/24/07 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 -

against the other Defendants will still remain, but the grounds for federal question

jurisdiction will no longer exist. Because the litigation is at an early stage, the Court will not

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant United States of America’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #4) is granted.

2. The Clerk shall remand this action to state court.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01241-DGC Document 11 Filed 08/24/07 Page 4 of 4