Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00164/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00164-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 42:1395 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

---

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

YARET MORALES, as next friend of

ESTELA LOREDO MORALES, the

real party in interest,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALOMAR HEALTH; BRUCE

FRIEDBERG; CEP AMERICA LLC;

KELLY PRETORIOUS; RADY

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AND

HEALTH CENTER; WENDY

HUNTER; and CHILDREN’S

SPECIALISTS OF SAN DIEGO, A

MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:14-cv-0164-GPC-BGS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PALOMAR

HEALTH’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AS UNOPPOSED, (ECF

NO. 30);

(2) DENYING FRIEDBERG AND

CEP’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

(ECF NO. 31)

On May 16, 2014, defendant Palomar Health filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

first cause of action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to

state a claim against Palomar Health. (ECF No. 30.) On the same day, defendants

Bruce Friedberg (“Friedberg”) and California Emergency Physicians Group dba

California Emergency Physicians America (erroneously sued as CEP America, LLC)

(“CEP”) filed a separate motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s third cause of action pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF

3:14-cv-0164-GPC-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00164-GPC-MDD Document 49 Filed 08/12/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

No. 31.) The Court set a briefing schedule requiring any response to the foregoing

motions to be filed on or before July 18, 2014. To date, the Court has received no

response to the foregoing motions.

1. Palomar Health’s Motion to Dismiss

Palomar Health moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to

dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action for violation of the Emergency Medical

Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). Palomar Health argues Plaintiff has

failed to allege facts sufficient to support her EMTALA claim as alleged against

Palomar Health.

Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides: “If an opposing party fails to file the papers

in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, thatfailure may constitute a consent

to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” While “[f]ailure

to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal,” courts must

consider the following factors before dismissing a case on such a ground: “(1) the

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage

its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks & citation

omitted).

The Court finds the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation

weighs in favor of dismissal, as Plaintiff’s claims against Palomar Health will be

entirely resolved without further delay if Palomar Health’s Motion is granted. The

Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal, as dismissal of

Palomar Health will result in a less complex, more streamlined case for the Court to

manage. The risk of prejudice to Palomar Health weighs in favor of dismissal, as

Palomar Health would be required to participate in this case without Plaintiff having

responded to Palomar Health’s arguments for dismissal. The public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal; yet, Plaintiff’s failure to

2 3:14-cv-0164-GPC-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00164-GPC-MDD Document 49 Filed 08/12/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

respond to Palomar Health’s Motion indicates Plaintiff’s disregard for disposing of her

case on the merits. Further, any dismissal would be without prejudice. Finally, the

Court is not imposing sanctions, but is instead considering whether to grant an

unopposed motion. Having considered the above factors, the Court finds they weigh

in favor of granting Palomar Health’s Motion as unopposed.

2. Friedberg & CEPA’s Motion to Dismiss

Friedberg and CEP move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),

to dismiss Plaintiff’s medical negligence claims for lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction. 

Friedberg and CEP argue the Court will be divested of federal-question jurisdiction if

Plaintiff’s EMTALAclaims against Palomar Health and co-defendantRadyChildren’s

Hospital San Diego (“RCHSD”) are dismissed.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins.

Co. v. New York, 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). As such, a federal court cannot

reach the merits of any dispute until it confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. See

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998). Federalquestion jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a

properly pled complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Because the Court has denied RCHSD’s motion to entirely dismiss Plaintiff’s

EMTALA claim, as set forth in the order thereon, the Court rejects Friedberg and

CEP’s argument that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The

Court will therefore deny Friedberg & CEP’s Motion to Dismiss.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Palomar Health’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 30), is GRANTED as

unopposed;

2. Friedberg and CEP’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 31), is DENIED; and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

3 3:14-cv-0164-GPC-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00164-GPC-MDD Document 49 Filed 08/12/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 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

3. The hearing on these motions, currently set for August 15, 2014, is

VACATED.

DATED: August 12, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 3:14-cv-0164-GPC-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-00164-GPC-MDD Document 49 Filed 08/12/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4