Palomar Health v. N Health Network Partners, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a defect in diversity jurisdiction caused by a non-diverse defendant who had been voluntarily dismissed by the parties. The court lifted the stay on responsive pleadings and set a deadline of October 9, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Lifted the stay on responsive pleadings and set the responsive-pleading deadline for October 9, 2025.“The responsive-pleading stay is lifted, and the responsive-pleading deadline is now October 9, 2025.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the voluntary dismissal of the non-diverse defendant cured the jurisdictional defect, assuming the dismissed party was not indispensable. Since the remaining defendant did not dispute jurisdiction, the court's presumption that the dismissed party was not indispensable was reasonable in this procedural context. Lifting the stay and setting a deadline is a standard procedural consequence of establishing jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the relevant Ninth Circuit authority regarding the dismissal of non-diverse parties to cure jurisdictional defects. The court's presumption that the dismissed party was not indispensable, given the lack of dispute from the remaining parties, is a defensible procedural shortcut in a case where the parties have already voluntarily dismissed the problematic defendant. The order is concise and addresses the immediate procedural need.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Palomar Health, et al., Case No.: 25-cv-2272-AGS-MSB Plainlls. ORDER LIFTING STAY AND 5 || V- SETTING RESPONSIVE-PLEADING 6 || ‘N Health Network Partners, LLC, et al., DEADLINE 7 Defendants. 8 9 In this lawsuit, the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is purportedly based on 10 |/diversity of citizenship, but the parties agree that there is no diversity between the 11 || California-based plaintiffs and one of the two defendants—California Clinical Partners 12 |} ACO, LLC. (ECF 14, at 2.) To cure this problem, the parties voluntarily dismissed that 13 ||non-diverse defendant. (See ECF 15.) The remaining defendant—‘N Health Network 14 || Partners, LLC—‘does not have any members who are citizens of the State of California,” 15 it does “not dispute the Court’s exercise of . . . diversity jurisdiction” over this action, 16 long as it is the lone defendant. (ECF 14, at 2.) 17 This Court has “discretionary power . . . to perfect its diversity jurisdiction by 18 ||dropping a nondiverse party provided the nondiverse party is not indispensable to the 19 || action.” Kirkland v. Legion Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2003). Because no one 20 || disputes this Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction over the remaining parties, the Court 21 || presumes that the dismissed defendant is not indispensable and that this Court properly has 22 subject-matter jurisdiction. The responsive-pleading stay is lifted, and the responsive- 23 || pleading deadline is now October 9, 2025. 24 ||Dated: September 18, 2025 26 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 17 United States District Judge 28