Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00200/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAYCEE FIGUEROA, deceased, by her )

Father JOHN FIGUEROA, as Personal )

Representative of the Estate, and JOHN )

FIGUEROA and MARSHA FIGUEROA )

Individually, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 07 -CV- 0200 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

ORDER VACATING APRIL 16, 2007

HEARING

(Documents #7 and #8)

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2007, Plaintiffs filed this action on their own behalf and as the

representatives of the estate of their deceased daughter, Maycee Figueroa. The complaint alleges

state law causes of action for negligence, wrongful death, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary

duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The complaint alleges that this court has

federal jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are citizens

of different states and over $75,000 is in controversy.

On March 8, 2007, Defendant William J. Redden filed a motion to dismiss. Defendant

Redden contends that both decedent Maycee Figueroa and Defendant Redden are citizens of

Case 1:07-cv-00200-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 04/11/07 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

California. Thus, Defendant Redden contends this court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this

action. 

On March 30, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a non-opposition to Defendant Redden’s motion. 

Plaintiffs state that after considering the moving papers, Plaintiffs elect not to oppose Defendant

Redden’s motion. Plaintiffs ask that the court grant the motion and dismiss this action without

prejudice to enable Plaintiffs to seek relief in state court.

Despite the presence of other named Defendants, no other party has filed an opposition to

Defendant’s motion or Plaintiffs’ non-opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a motion to dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff has the burden to establish that subject matter

jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This

burden, at the pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper

basis for the court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. McNutt v. General Motors

Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). When a defendant

challenges jurisdiction “facially,” all material allegations in the complaint are assumed true, and

the question for the court is whether the lack of federal jurisdiction appears from the face of the

pleading itself. Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telephone Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, 733

(9 Cir. 1979). A defendant may also attack the existence of subject matter jurisdiction apart th

from the pleadings. Mortensen, 549 F. 2d at 891. In such a case, the court may rely on evidence

extrinsic to the pleadings and resolve factual disputes relating to jurisdiction. St. Clair v. City of

Chico, 880 F. 2d 199, 201 (9 Cir.1989); Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9 Cir. th th

1987).

RELEVANT FACTS

The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs John Figueroa and Marsha Figueroa are residents of

the State of Utah. The evidence provided by Defendant Redden states that Decedent Maycee

Case 1:07-cv-00200-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 04/11/07 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

Figueroa was a resident of the State of California at the time of her death, and by operation of

law, Decedent Estate’s legal representative is also deemed a resident of the State of California. 

The complaint alleges that Defendant Redden is a resident of the State of California.

DISCUSSION

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides for federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. 

Section 1332 reads in part:

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest

and costs, and is between--

(1) citizens of different States;

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;

(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a

foreign state are additional parties; and

(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and

citizens of a State or of different States.

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted

to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State

in which such alien is domiciled.

(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the

United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal

courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of

$75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the

defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the

district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on

the plaintiff.

(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title--

(1) a corporation shall be deemed . . . .

(2) the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a

citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an

infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the

infant or incompetent.

. . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that

no defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a

Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9 Cir. 2001). th

Here, the parties agree that Plaintiff Estate and Defendant Redden are both citizens of

California. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

and this court must dismiss this action. Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal, and in fact asks that

the court dismiss this action without prejudice so Plaintiffs may file it in state court. No other

Case 1:07-cv-00200-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 04/11/07 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

Defendant has filed an opposition to Defendant Redden’s motion. Thus, dismissal in this case is

warranted.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant Redden’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction; 

3. The April 16, 2007 hearing is VACATED; and

4. The Clerk of the Court SHALL close this file as this order terminates this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00200-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 4