Opinion
Case No: 16-cv-1795-L-NLS
03-09-2017
ANGELICA CORREA et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court in this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) & 2671-2680 ("FTCA"), is the Government's unopposed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, the Government's motion is granted. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend to allege federal jurisdiction for their claim against the remaining Defendant, Scripps Mercy Hospital, Chula Vista ("Scripps").
Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action in State court against Scripps and four doctors. The Government substituted into the action in place of the doctors and removed the action to this Court under42 U.S.C. §233. / / / / /
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Government filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted against it because Plaintiffs did not file an administrative claim as required by 28 U.S.C. §2675(a). Plaintiffs were served with the motion (see doc. no. 3-3 & 4-1), but did not file an opposition. The Government's motion to dismiss is therefore granted as unopposed. Civ. Loc. R. 7.1.f.3; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). In the alternative, the motion is granted because the FTCA "requirement of an administrative claim is jurisdictional." Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). The record does not show that Plaintiffs filed an administrative claim. Accordingly, the claims asserted against the Government are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Remaining in this action are the claims against Scripps. Unlike State courts, "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Federal courts are constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). A federal court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is properly before the Court. See Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).
Nothing in the record supports federal subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted against Scripps. The claims against Scripps are therefore dismissed without prejudice for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend to allege federal jurisdiction as to Scripps. If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so no later than March 30, 2017.
For the foregoing reasons it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Government's motion to dismiss is granted.
2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the complaint to allege federal jurisdiction for claims against Scripps Mercy Hospital, Chula Vista. If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so no later than March 30, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. M. James Lorenz
United States District Judge