Staggs v. Doctor's Hospital of Manteca, Inc.

Full title: LINNIE STAGGS, as administrator of the ESTATE OF ROBERT E. STAGGS…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 2, 2015

2:11-cv-00414-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015)

Opinion

LINNIE STAGGS, as administrator of the ESTATE OF ROBERT E. STAGGS, deceased, and MELISSA STAGGS, Plaintiffs, v. DOCTOR'S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-00414-MCE-KJN United States District Court, E.D. California. September 2, 2015

          ORDER

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         On April 26, 2013, this Court dismissed the only two federal claims for relief in the operative complaint, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims, and directed the Clerk of the Court to close this action. The Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed and remanded. See ECF Nos. 94, 95. The Ninth Circuit found that this Court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs' first claim for relief, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Plaintiffs had "alleged sufficient facts to state a claim that the prison defendants were deliberately indifferent to Robert Staggs' medical needs." ECF No. 94 at 2.¹ The remand included instructions for this Court to reconsider exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims.

1 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' other federal claim. ECF No. 94 at 2-3.

         In light of the Ninth Circuit's remand, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-open this action.

         2. The Court's April 26, 2013 Order (ECF No. 88) is VACATED in its entirety, except with regard to the dismissal of Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action, which remains DISMISSED with prejudice.

         3. This action will proceed on Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 84).

         4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims.

         5. Given the passage of time, however, Defendants Sattah, Russin, and Owen's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 72) and Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 74)-both of which were denied as moot by way of the Court's April 26, 2013 Order-are hereby DENIED without prejudice to refiling now.

         6. Not later than thirty (30) days following the date this Order is electronically filed, the parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report with the Court.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.