Summary
This document is a proposed order in a consolidated Eastern District of California action arising from alleged birth-related injuries and negligence claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It grants the United States’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiffs’ notice of non-opposition and orders Plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Holdings
- The United States was entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence supporting their negligence claim and did not oppose the motion.
- The court did not decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered Plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised.
Questions Presented
- Whether the United States was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' Federal Tort Claims Act negligence claim based on the absence of evidence supporting the claim.
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc)(followed)
- Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- In re Apple Computer Securities Litigation, 886 F.2d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc., 960 F.2d 1458, 1462 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…