L.T. v. Douglas ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 L.T., A MINOR, THROUGH HER No. 2:21-cv-1564 WBS JDP GUARDIAN AT LITEM, LATISHA 13 WATKINS; LATISHA WATKINS AND MARIO TYLER, INDIVIDUALLY, 14 ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 17 GREGORY E. DOUGLAS, M.D.; PAULA L. AKIN, D.O.; MERCY GENERAL 18 HOSPITAL; AND DOES 1 TO 100, 19 Defendants. 20 21 ----oo0oo---- 22 Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in 23 Sacramento County Superior Court on November 6, 2020 against 24 Gregory E. Douglas, M.D.; Paula L. Akin, D.O.; Nathan Allen, 25 M.D.; WellSpace Health; Mercy General Hospital; and DOES 1 to 100 26 for medical negligence, medical battery, and negligent infliction 27 of emotional distress arising from the care and delivery of 28 plaintiff L.T. on November 22, 2019. (Decl. of Kelli L. Taylor, 1 Ex. 1, Complaint (Docket No. 4-3) (“Compl.”).) 2 On or about June 18, 2021, after filing their complaint 3 in the state court, plaintiffs filed an administrative claim with 4 the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the pre- 5 natal care and delivery of plaintiff L.T. (Decl. of Taylor, Ex. 6 2, Administrative Claim (Docket No. 4-4) (“Admin. Claim”).) 7 On or about August 19, 2021, the United States Attorney 8 certified that Dr. Allen and WellSpace were employees of the 9 Public Health Service pursuant to the Federally Supported Health 10 Centers Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233, and acting within the 11 scope of their employment at the time of the incident. (See 12 Decl. of Taylor, Ex. 3, Certification of Scope of Employment 13 (Docket No. 4-5).) 14 On August 31, 2021, defendant United States removed the 15 above-captioned action to this court (Docket No. 1), and pursuant 16 to stipulation of the plaintiffs and United States, the United 17 States was substituted in place of Dr. Allen and WellSpace Health 18 on September 2, 2021. (Docket No. 5.) 19 The United States now moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ 20 claim against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant 21 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) based upon plaintiffs’ failure to 22 exhaust administrative remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675 23 of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). (Docket No. 4.) 24 Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. 25 (Docket No. 8.) 26 Where a jurisdictional issue is separable from the 27 merits of case, the court may determine jurisdiction under Rule 28 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Roberts v. 1 Crothers, 812 F. 2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987); Augustine v. 2 United States, 704 F. 2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). In such a 3 situation, the court is “free to hear evidence regarding 4 jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving 5 factual disputes where necessary.” Augustine at 1077. 6 The FTCA “gives federal district courts exclusive 7 jurisdiction over claims against the United States for ‘injury or 8 loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the 9 negligent or wrongful act or omission’ of federal employees 10 acting within the scope of their employment.” Levin v. United 11 States, 568 U.S. 503, 506 (2013) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 12 1346(b)(1)). Upon removal to federal district court, the 13 proceeding is “deemed a tort action brought against the United 14 States under the” FTCA. 42 U.S.C. § 233. 15 However, the “FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in 16 federal court until they have exhausted their administrative 17 remedies.” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (2021). 18 To exhaust administrative remedies, a claimant must first present 19 her claim “to the appropriate Federal Agency” and the claim must 20 be denied in writing, or if the agency has not made a final 21 disposition within six months, the claim is deemed denied and the 22 claimant can proceed to court. See 28 U.S.C. 2675(a); Jerves v. 23 United States, 996 F. 2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992). The 24 administrative claim requirements are jurisdictional in nature 25 and must be strictly adhered to. See Jerves at 521; Meridian 26 Int’l Logistics, Inc. v. United States, 939 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 27 Cir. 1991). 28 The United States correctly asserts, based on the 1 undisputed facts set forth in its motion, that plaintiffs did not 2 exhaust administrative remedies prior to suing the United States 3 under the FTCA. Plaintiffs did not file their administrative 4 claim until after they filed their claim in state court, and it 5 has still been less than six months since the administrative 6 claim was filed. There is no evidence showing that plaintiffs’ 7 administrative claim was ever denied or otherwise acted upon. 8 Plaintiffs do not dispute this timeline. 9 Because less than six months have expired since the 10 filing of plaintiffs’ administrative claim, and the claim has not 11 yet been acted upon, plaintiffs have not exhausted their 12 administrative remedies prior to bringing suit under the FTCA, 13 and this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the claim 14 as against the United States. Accordingly, the complaint’s 15 claims against the United States must be dismissed. Nothing in 16 this Order shall preclude plaintiffs from continuing to pursue 17 administrative remedies to which they are entitled. Upon 18 exhaustion of those administrative remedies, plaintiffs may 19 choose to bring another suit against the United States. 20 Upon dismissal of defendant United States, Dr. Douglas, 21 Dr. Akin, Mercy General Hospital, and Does 1 to 100 remain as 22 defendants in this case, and plaintiffs assert only state law 23 claims against them. Federal courts have “supplemental 24 jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims 25 in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form 26 part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the 27 United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, a 28 district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 1 . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which 2 it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also 3 Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 n.3 (9th Cir. 4 1997) (en banc) (explaining that a district court may decide sua 5 sponte to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). 6 The Supreme Court has stated that “in the usual case in 7 which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the 8 balance of factors to be considered under the pendent 9 jurisdiction doctrine——judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 10 and comity——will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction 11 over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. 12 Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). 13 Here, the factors weigh in favor of declining to 14 exercise supplemental jurisdiction. This case is in its very 15 early stages and this is the only motion that has been brought in 16 this court. The state court is fully competent to adjudicate the 17 state law claims and may have a better understanding of the 18 relevant state law. It appears that both the state and federal 19 courts are equally convenient for the parties, and plaintiffs 20 originally brought this suit in state court. Counsel for 21 plaintiffs further agreed during oral argument that the remaining 22 claims should be remanded. Accordingly, having dismissed this 23 action as to the United States, the court will remand plaintiffs’ 24 remaining state law claims to the state court. 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to 26 dismiss (Docket No. 4) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 27 Plaintiffs’ claims against the United States are DISMISSED. 28 AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and the nnn nn mene enn OE ON IE EON EO 1 same hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, in 2 and for the County of Sacramento. The Clerk of this Court shall 3 forward a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Superior Court 4 of California, in and for the County of Sacramento. 5 | Dated: October 5, 2021 bet 4k. 1S. 6 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28