The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal in the case of Cromer v. Eisner Health (No. 25-4154) due to a failure to file the notice of appeal within the required timeframe. This decision affects the plaintiffs, who are seeking justice for alleged medical malpractice and wrongful death, and highlights the importance of adhering to strict legal timelines.
The case originated from a medical malpractice and wrongful death action filed in California state court by plaintiffs Legend Josiah Cromer and others, represented by their parent and guardian, Freddie L. Cromer. The defendants in this case include Eisner Health, along with several medical professionals. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ actions led to significant harm, prompting them to seek damages in court.
The dispute escalated when the defendants removed the case to federal court, citing the federal qualified health center immunity statute and the federal officer removal statute. This move was contested by the plaintiffs, who sought to have the case remanded back to state court. The district court granted the government’s motion to remand the case to state court on April 18, 2025, but the defendants filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2025, which the court found to be untimely.
The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal due to the late filing. According to the opinion, "Because we find that Defendants’ July 2, 2025, notice of appeal was not filed within the period required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)–(b), we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal as untimely." This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal deadlines in the appeals process.
The judges involved in this ruling included Circuit Judges Bumatay, Vandyke, and Mendoza, Jr. The majority opinion focused on the jurisdictional requirements for filing an appeal, specifically under 28 U.S.C. § 2107, which mandates that notices of appeal must be filed within a specified period following the entry of a judgment or order.
The court clarified that the entry of the order occurred when the district court filed the remand order on the civil docket. This meant the defendants had 30 days to file their notice of appeal, which they failed to do. The court noted that a stay of execution of the remand order did not extend the deadline for filing the notice of appeal.
In the dissenting opinion, Judge Bumatay argued that the remand order should be treated as a final judgment rather than a collateral order, which could have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future. However, the majority opinion prevailed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
This ruling carries significant implications for the plaintiffs in this case, as it effectively ends their pursuit of the appeal in federal court. The dismissal reinforces the necessity for all parties involved in legal proceedings to be aware of and comply with strict deadlines, as failure to do so can result in the loss of the right to appeal.
The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future cases involving medical malpractice and wrongful death claims, particularly those that involve jurisdictional disputes between state and federal courts. It serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal proceedings and the critical importance of timely actions by all parties.
Looking ahead, the defendants may not have the option to appeal this decision further, as the Ninth Circuit's dismissal is generally considered final in this context. However, the parties may still pursue related claims or actions in state court, depending on the circumstances surrounding the original case.