Mark Haas v. Arjohuntleigh, Inc., et al
| Mark Haas |
| Arjohuntleigh, Inc, Julian J. Wilson, Julian J. Wilson, DDS, APC, Arjohuntleigh, Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Does 1-40, Inclusive and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals |
| 2:2017cv00208 |
| January 10, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael R Wilner |
| Otis D Wright |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 23, 2017. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On January 11, 2017, the Court issued a minute order indicating that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (ECF No. 7.) The Court ordered Plaintiff, on or before January 18, 2017, to either: (1) dismiss all non-diverse defendants from the action; or (2) dismiss the action entirely. The Court indicated that failure to timely respond to the order would result in a dismissal of the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b). To date, Plaintiff has neither dismissed the non-diverse Defendants nor dismissed the action. Thus, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for lack of subject matterjurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)
|
| Filing 8 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Mark Haas Mark Haas, identifying Kaiser Foundation Hospital; Southern California Permanente Medical Group. (Fagel, Bruce) |
|
Filing 7
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff Mark Haas filed this action, in which he asserts productsliability claims and medical malpractice claims arising from a botched surgery. Plaintiff alleges that: (1) diversity jurisdiction exists forhis product liability claim because it is only asserted against Arjohuntleigh, Inc., which is diverse from Plaintiff; and (2) the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining medical malpractice claims against the non-diverse defendants. The presence of even one non-diverse defendant in the entire action destroys the Courts diversity jurisdiction, which is the only basis for Courts original jurisdiction in this action. And without original jurisdiction, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims. Thus, on or before January 18, 2017, Plaintiff must either: (1) dismiss all non-diverse defendants from the action; or (2) dismiss the action entirely. Failure to timely respond to this order will result in a dismissal of the action without prejudice until Rule 41(b). (lc)
|
|
Filing 6
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central Districts website for additional information. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC FILING REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION; PLEASE refer to Local Rule 79-5 for the submission of CIVIL ONLY SEALED DOCUMENTS. CRIMINAL SEALED DOCUMENTS will remain the same. all proposed sealed documents must be submitted via e-mail to the Judges Chambers email address, EXCLUDING those submitted by pro se parties and IN CAMERA filings, which shall continue to comply with Local Rule 79-5.1. Please refer to the Judges procedures and schedules for detailed instructions for submission of sealed documents. (lc)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (esa) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (esa) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Mark Haas. (Fagel, Bruce) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-19171928 - Fee: $400, filed by Mark Haas Mark Haas. (Attorney Bruce Gary Fagel added to party Mark Haas(pty:pla))(Fagel, Bruce) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
