Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00386/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00386-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346 U.S. Defendant

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELENA ALFONSO SANTANA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv0386 JM(NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. STRIKE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), Defendant the United States of America

(“Defendant”) moves to strike the second claim for Failure to Inform as redundant to

the claim for Medical Negligence. Plaintiff Elena Alfonso Santana opposes the motion. 

Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters submitted appropriate for decision

without oral arguments. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion to

strike.

BACKGROUND

On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this Federal Tort Claims Act

(“FTCA”) case by filing a complaint alleging two claims for Medical Negligence and

Failure to Inform. Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendant’s alleged “failure to diagnose

and treat Plaintiff’s lung cancer due to the medical negligence of employees or qualified

contractors of the North County Health Project, Inc.” (Compl. ¶5). 

On January 13, 2014, Plaintiff was referred to a pulmonologist “for diagnostic

testing of a known lung mass.” (Compl. ¶12). Following a fine needle aspiration and

- 1 -

Case 3:17-cv-00386-JM-NLS Document 12 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

biopsy, Plaintiff was informed that the pathology results were negative for carcinoma. 

However, Plaintiff was not informed that the “biopsy was actually positive for

adenocarcinoma of the lung.” (Compl. ¶13). As a result of “not being aware of the

cancer, and therefore delaying treatment for same, [] the cancer metastasiz[ed].” Id.

The alleged failure to inform Plaintiff of the cancer diagnosis shortened Plaintiff’s life

expectancy and caused her severe and serious injury. (Compl. ¶14).

DISCUSSION

A party may move to strike any “insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). In general, motions

to strike are disfavored because of the potential for delay and the preference for

resolving matters on the merits. When doubt exists as to the relevance of challenged

allegations, courts err on the side of permitting the allegations to stand, particularly

where no prejudice is demonstrated. See Dah Chong Hong, Ltd. v. Silk Greenhouse,

719 F.Supp. 1072, 1073 (M.D. Fl. 1989).

Defendant argues that the Failure to Inform claim is impermissibly redundant to

the Medical Negligence claim because both claims are premised on Defendant’s alleged

failure to inform Plaintiff that she suffered from adenocarcinoma of the lung. (Compl.

¶¶13, 19). While there is substantial support for Defendant’s argument, the court

declines to grant the motion because the case is in its infancy, discovery has yet to

commence, and the preference is to resolve matters on the merits. Furthermore, in light

of Defendant’s argument that the two claims are really a single claim for Medical

Negligence, the court notes that there is no prejudice in allowing discovery to proceed.

In sum, the court denies the motion to strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2017

 

JEFFREY T. MILLER

United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 2 -

Case 3:17-cv-00386-JM-NLS Document 12 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2