Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150623_0001650.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 04:08:12
Document Index: 127656769

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1441', '§ 2675', '§ 1441', '§ 1331', '§ 233', '§ 233']

| Canales v. Jones
Canales v. Jones
Patricia Canales, Plaintiff,v.Dr. Robert Jones, and United States, Defendants.
This matter is before the court pursuant to Plaintiff Patricia Canales's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas for Allendale County, South Carolina. (ECF No. 16.) Defendant United States[1] ("United States") submits that its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted, but does not oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Remand once Plaintiff's action against the United States has been dismissed. (ECF No. 19.) Defendant Dr. Robert Jones ("Defendant Jones") did not respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.[2] For the reasons set forth herein, the court SEVERS Plaintiff's claims against the United States and Defendant Jones, GRANTS the United States' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) as to claims against the United States, and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No.16) as to claims against Defendant Jones.
On or around February 8, 2012, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jones sexually assaulted her during a medical appointment at Low Country Health Care System, Inc.'s ("LCHCS") facility. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4 ¶ 4, 5 ¶ 11.) Defendant Jones was an employee of LCHCS during this time. (Id. at 4 ¶ 5.) On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint[3] in the Court of Common Pleas for Allendale County, South Carolina, alleging negligence against LCHCS and Defendant Jones, outrage against Defendant Jones, and false imprisonment against Defendant Jones with LCHCS's assistance. (Id. at 1, 6 ¶¶ 15-17, 8 ¶¶ 22, 26.) For jurisdictional purposes, Plaintiff alleged she is a citizen of South Carolina, Defendant Jones operates as a physician in South Carolina, and LCHCS operates as a healthcare provider in South Carolina. (Id. at 4 ¶¶ 1-3.)
On October 31, 2014, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit pursuant to the FTCA. (ECF No. 6 at 1; ECF No. 6-1 at 4.) On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand asserting that no basis of removal exists as to claims against Defendant Jones. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) Plaintiff urges the court to remand the entire matter or sever and remand the claims against Defendant Jones pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2). (Id. at 2-3.) The United States filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand on January 5, 2015. (ECF No. 19 at 1.)
It is appropriate to sever the claims against the United States and Defendant Jones. While the claims do involve the same facts, Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced if the claims against both the United States and Defendant Jones were dismissed because the statute of limitations as to claims against Defendant Jones has expired. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) See Grayson, 2014 WL 1512029, at *2. In light of the potential prejudice to Plaintiff and neither Defendant's opposition, Plaintiff's claims against the United States and Defendant Jones are severed.
Plaintiff's claims against the United States should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff was required to present her claim to the appropriate federal agency before filing suit in court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Plaintiff filed her Complaint in state court on March 13, 2014, but she did not file an administrative claim with the Department of Health and Human Services until June 3, 2014. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1; ECF No. 1-2 at 1-2 ¶ 4.) Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit, and her suit is thus barred. See McNeil, 508 U.S. at 113. Because this administrative process is jurisdictional, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Henderson, 785 F.2d at 123. Therefore, the United States' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is granted.
C. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand as to Claims Against Defendant Jones
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A defendant is permitted to remove a case to federal court if the court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal court has original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Where the Attorney General certifies that a defendant employed by the Public Health Service was "acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, " the suit will be removed from state court and treated as a tort action against the United States under Title 28.[5] 42 U.S.C. § 233(a), (c). Absent this certification, removal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 233(c) is not possible. Metcalf v. West Suburban Hosp., 912 F.Supp. 382, 385 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby SEVERS Plaintiff's claims against the United States and Defendant Jones. The court GRANTS the United States' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) as to claims against the United States. The court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16) as to claims against Defendant Jones and REMANDS Plaintiff's action against Defendant Jones to the Court of Common Pleas of Allendale County, South Carolina for further proceedings.