Oliver v. Trujillo, D.O.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-00570 · 2020-07-13 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Janis L. Sammartino (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:38Z · confidence high

The United States of America moved to dismiss itself from the action, and the plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The court granted the motion, dismissed the United States without prejudice, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and remanded the case to the San Diego County Superior Court.

What the court decided	The model
Motion to Dismiss granted; United States of America dismissed without prejudice “The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 5) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the United States of America from this action.”	agree with court The order recites that the plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-opposition to the motion. In federal practice, a motion to dismiss a party who is not properly before the court or who is not a proper defendant is routinely granted when unopposed, particularly when the party is the United States and the claims against it are likely subject to sovereign immunity or lack of proper service/jurisdiction. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to refile if a valid basis exists, though typically against proper defendants. The decision follows logically from the procedural posture described.
Supplemental jurisdiction declined; case remanded to state court “Because this case has yet to proceed beyond the pleadings, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendant Scripps Health... and REMANDS this action this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.”	agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. The order cites Ove v. Gwinn for the proposition that courts often decline supplemental jurisdiction when the case has not progressed beyond the pleadings. It cites Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc. for the discretion to remand. The reasoning is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent favoring remand to state court when federal claims are dismissed early in the litigation to conserve judicial resources and respect state court primacy over state law claims.

What the court decided

The model

Motion to Dismiss granted; United States of America dismissed without prejudice

“The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 5) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the United States of America from this action.”

agree with court
The order recites that the plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-opposition to the motion. In federal practice, a motion to dismiss a party who is not properly before the court or who is not a proper defendant is routinely granted when unopposed, particularly when the party is the United States and the claims against it are likely subject to sovereign immunity or lack of proper service/jurisdiction. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to refile if a valid basis exists, though typically against proper defendants. The decision follows logically from the procedural posture described.

Supplemental jurisdiction declined; case remanded to state court

“Because this case has yet to proceed beyond the pleadings, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendant Scripps Health... and REMANDS this action this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.”

agree with court
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. The order cites *Ove v. Gwinn* for the proposition that courts often decline supplemental jurisdiction when the case has not progressed beyond the pleadings. It cites *Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc.* for the discretion to remand. The reasoning is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent favoring remand to state court when federal claims are dismissed early in the litigation to conserve judicial resources and respect state court primacy over state law claims.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the discretionary standard for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) by citing controlling Ninth Circuit authority (*Ove* and *Albingia*). The decision to dismiss the United States without prejudice based on non-opposition is procedurally sound. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITA OLIVER, an individual, Case No.: 20-CV-570 JLS (KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AND REMANDING ACTION 14 JENNIFER TRUJILLO, D.O., an individual; CENTRO DE SALUD DE LA 15 (ECF No. 5) COMMUNIDAD DE SAN YSIDRO, a 16 non-profit organization; SCRIPPS HEALTH, a California corporation; and 17 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Presently before the Court is Defendant the United States of America’s Motion to 21 Dismiss (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff Benita Oliver has filed a Notice of Non-opposition to 22 Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 9). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion 23 (ECF No. 5) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the United States of America 24 from this action. Because this case has yet to proceed beyond the pleadings, the Court 25 declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against 26 Defendant Scripps Health, see Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001), and 27 REMANDS this action this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County 28 of San Diego. See Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 1 937-39 (9th Cir.), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 350 F.3d 916 (9th 2 2003) (court has discretion whether to remand a case to state court after all federal 3 ||/claims are dismissed). The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: July 13, 2020 . tt 6 pee Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28