Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01076/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01076-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Martha Shmatko, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona CVS Stores LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01076-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants Otto Uhrik and Clinic for Pain Relief have filed a motion to dismiss 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1). Doc. 6. The motion is fully briefed and no party has requested oral argument. 

The Court will deny the motion. Nevertheless, finding that it lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss all claims as to all Defendants and will deny all 

pending motions as moot. 

I. Background. 

 This case arises from the tragic death of Plaintiff’s daughter, Dusti Jo Smith, who 

passed away in October 2012 from intoxication by opioid. Doc. 1, ¶ 17. Smith had been 

using pain medication patches containing the opioid Fentanyl to combat severe back pain 

and pain from oral surgery. Id., ¶¶ 15-17. Plaintiff alleges that Smith suffered from 

depression and “admitted to take more than normal dose of medicine to get relief from 

the pain.” Id., ¶ 15. Because Smith reported that she did not get adequate relief from her 

medications, Smith’s doctor prescribed an increased dosage of Fentanyl that effectively 

doubled her intake of the opioid. Id., ¶ 16. Smith’s death appears to have been caused by 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-DGC Document 28 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

an overdose of Fentanyl. 

 Plaintiff instituted this action on May 20, 2014 naming various doctors, Clinic for 

Pain Relief, and Arizona CVS Stores, LLC as defendants. Plaintiff asserts three claims 

against Defendants, including medical negligence/medical malpractice, strict product 

liability, and breach of warranty. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the 

parties or the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 

1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). “The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving 

all jurisdictional facts.” Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)); 

see In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001); Fenton v. 

Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1359, n.1 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions: 

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has 

diversity jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states involving claims 

greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 requires complete diversity 

between the parties. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). In other 

words, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each 

defendant. Id. 

III. Analysis. 

 A. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 

The Court entered an order on May 22, 2014 instructing the parties that “motions 

to dismiss must contain a certification of conferral indicating that the parties have 

conferred to determine whether an amendment could cure a deficient pleading.” Doc 4 at 

1. Notwithstanding the Court’s warning that “[m]otions to dismiss that do not contain the 

required certification are subject to be stricken on the Court’s motion[,]” Defendants 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-DGC Document 28 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

Uhrik and Clinic for Pain Relief have filed a motion to dismiss without attaching the 

required certification. Defendants should heed the Court’s orders. The Court will strike 

their motion. 

B. Sua Sponte Dismissal For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 

 A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction at any 

time during the pendency of an action. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th 

Cir. 2002); Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 

1981). It may do so without providing the parties with notice and an opportunity to 

respond. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 

2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court 

contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.”). 

 Because Plaintiff’s claims for medical negligence, medical malpractice, strict 

product liability, and breach of warranty are state-law causes of action, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint does not raise a federal question and the Court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff appears to believe that federal 

question jurisdiction exists because one or more Defendants violated the Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and/or the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (“DEA”) Practitioner 

Manual, which was authored to assist the DEA with the administration of the Controlled 

Substances Act (“CSA”). Doc. 8 a 2-4. Federal law unequivocally holds, however, that 

the FDCA and CSA do not create private rights of action that can give rise to a federal 

question. See 21 U.S.C. § 337 (stating that only the United States may enforce FDA laws 

or regulations); 21 U.S.C. §§ 871 & 882 (granting only the Attorney General or United 

States authority to enforce federal law governing controlled substances). 

 It appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that Plaintiff and all Defendants are Arizona 

residents. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 3-9. Because this case is not between citizens of different states, 

the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Cmty. for a Better Env’t, 

236 F.3d 495, 502 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court’s dismissal of case involving 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-DGC Document 28 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

malicious prosecution, libel, and slander causes of action because complete diversity did 

not exist); Indus. Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1092 (affirming district court’s dismissal of case 

because complete diversity did not exist). 

IV. Leave to Amend. 

 “The court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (authorizing amendment of 

pleadings to cure defective jurisdictional statement). In the Ninth Circuit, “[a] pro se 

litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is ‘absolutely clear 

that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Karim-Panahi 

v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 

F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (“As a general matter, this court has long sought to ensure that pro se litigants 

do not unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements that they may, with some 

assistance from the court, be able to satisfy.”). 

 The Court will dismiss the complaint without leave to amend. The claims asserted 

in Plaintiff’s complaint are classic state-law claims and simply do not give rise to a 

federal question. Nor can Plaintiff bring a diversity-based claim against Defendants. 

Given these realities, the Court is satisfied that amendment of the complaint would be 

futile. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is denied. 

3. The remaining motions (Docs. 7, 17, 18, 23, 24) are denied as moot. 

Dated this 1st day of August, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01076-DGC Document 28 Filed 08/01/14 Page 4 of 4