Palomar Health v. N Health Network Partners, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02272
• Status: Unknown

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