Filed: Aug. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . This action is before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See ECF Nos. 198 (Opinion) and 200 (Mandate). In this case, Plaintiffs sought relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 1346, alleging that United States Air Force medical personnel committed medical malpractice. ECF No. 184 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted that even though Air Force medical personnel provided care for, or were aw
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . This action is before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See ECF Nos. 198 (Opinion) and 200 (Mandate). In this case, Plaintiffs sought relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 1346, alleging that United States Air Force medical personnel committed medical malpractice. ECF No. 184 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted that even though Air Force medical personnel provided care for, or were awa..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
This action is before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See ECF Nos. 198 (Opinion) and 200 (Mandate). In this case, Plaintiffs sought relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, alleging that United States Air Force medical personnel committed medical malpractice. ECF No. 184 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted that even though Air Force medical personnel provided care for, or were aware of Plaintiff Chantal Holt's two premature deliveries, and one miscarriage, they (1) failed to warn Chantal about the added dangers she faced during her then-current pregnancy with Plaintiff S.H., (2) failed to prepare Chantal for those dangers, and (3) failed to caution Chantal against traveling overseas to a facility that was not equipped to handle those dangers. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs asserted that this malpractice was the proximate cause of S.H.'s premature birth and resulting cerebral palsy. Id.
Defendant unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on August 12, 2013, on grounds that the FTCA's foreign country exception barred Plaintiffs' claims. ECF No. 34. The Court held a bench trial commencing on March 11, 2014. ECF No. 140. The trial concluded on March 20, 2014, and on July 2, 2014, the Court issued an Order resolving the case in Plaintiffs' favor. ECF No. 182. Judgment was entered on July 8, 2014. ECF No. 183. The same day, the Court entered an Amended Order in which it awarded Plaintiffs $10,409,700 in damages. ECF No. 184. An Amended Judgment was entered the following day. ECF No. 185. Defendant thereafter moved to alter or amend the judgment, ECF No. 186, which motion the Court granted in part but substantially denied, declining to alter the damages award. ECF No. 188.
In December 2014, Defendant appealed the Amended Judgment and all related interlocutory orders (ECF No. 194), and in April 2017, the Court of Appeals issued an Opinion vacating this Court's Order and remanding the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 198. Pursuant to that Opinion and the Mandate issued on July 18, 2017, this case is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
