Tulare Local Health Care District et al v. California Department of Health Care Services et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02711

ORDER re {{4}} MOTION to Remand to State Court. Respondents California Department of Health Care Services, et al. are ORDERED to submit a supplemental brief of no more than three (3) pages within seven (7) days pursuant to this order. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 8/18/2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 TULARE LOCAL HEALTH CARE) Case No. 3:15-CV-02711-SC DISTRICT, a California local) 10 health care district, dba TULARE) ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,) BRIEFING 11) Petitioners,) 12) v.) 13) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) 14 CARE SERVICES, et al.,)) 15 Respondents.)) 16 17 18 Now before the Court is Petitioners Tulare Local Health Care 19 District, et al.'s ("Petitioners") motion for remand. ECF No. 4 20 ("Mot."). In their opposition brief, Respondents California 21 Department of Health Care Services, et al.'s ("Respondents") assert 22 that "where an action in mandamus seeks to enforce federal law, 23 federal courts routinely retain jurisdiction." ECF No. 14 24 ("Opp'n") at 8. Respondents' brief, however, fails to provide any 25 examples of a federal court retaining jurisdiction over an action 26 in mandamus that did not involve the court's supplemental 27 /// 28 /// 1 jurisdiction.1 Because Petitioners' motion turns, in large part, 2 on the veracity of Respondents' assertion, the Court hereby ORDERS 3 Respondents to submit a supplemental brief of no more than three 4 (3) pages within seven (7) days of the date of this order. The 5 supplemental brief should provide support for Respondents' 6 assertion and address no other issues. Petitioners may file a 7 response of no more than three (3) pages within seven (7) days of 8 the filing of Respondents' supplemental brief. Petitioners' For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 response should address Respondents' supplemental brief and no 10 other issues. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: August 18, 2015 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 The cases cited by Respondents are inapposite. See City of Chi, 522 U.S. 156, 160 (1997) (involving claims brought under the 26 Illinois' Administrative Review Law); Vieux v. E. Bay Reg'l Park Dist., 906 F.2d 1330, 1338 (9th Cir. 1990) (involving federal 27 claims and reviewing the petition for writ of mandate under the court's supplemental jurisdiction); Yang v. Cal. Dept. of Social 28 Servs., 183 F.3d 953, 955 (1999) (involving federal claims). 2