Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02132/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

Juan Francisco Ortega-Rubio, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Alan Horowitch, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. cv-08-2132-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Alan Horowitch’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(4), and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 16). Defendant alleges that (a)

Plaintiff’s purported service of process is invalid, (b) federal court jurisdiction is improper,

and (c) the events referenced in Plaintiff’s complaint are outside the statute of limitations.

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion will be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Alan Horowitch is a physician licensed to practice in the state of Arizona.

Dr. Horowitch treated Plaintiff Juan Ortega-Rubio at his Yuma practice between January 22,

2003 and October 8, 2003. Plaintiff complained of lower back pain due to a workplace

injury. On December 17, 2004, Defendant terminated his professional relationship with

Plaintiff, writing that he would provide emergency treatment only for the next 30 days as

Plaintiff found a new physician. 

Case 2:08-cv-02132-ROS Document 43 Filed 07/16/09 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

- 2 -

Subsequently, Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant. Plaintiff’s precise claims are

unclear. It appears that he alleges that Defendant did not properly treat or diagnose Plaintiff

and that Defendant’s alleged failure to fill out paperwork meant that Plaintiff lost a

vocational rehabilitation benefit he otherwise would have been entitled to.

II. ANALYSIS

Because “it is this court’s duty to see that [its] jurisdiction, defined and limited by

statute, is not exceeded,” Curtis v. Nevada Bonding Corp., 53 F.3d 1023, 1026 (9th Cir.

1995), the question of subject matter jurisdiction will be taken up first. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) allows a party to assert, by motion, the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

When deciding such a motion, “it is well-settled that the complaint will be construed broadly

and liberally, in conformity with the general principle set forth in Rule 8(f).” C. A. Wright,

et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350 (2004). However, “once a factual attack is

made on the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the district judge is not obliged to

accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true and may examine the evidence to the contrary and

reach his or her own conclusions on the matter.” Id. See also, Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac.

Aircraft Indus., Inc., 813 F.2d 1553, 1558 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendant notes that Plaintiff fails

to set forth a “short and plain statement” of his claims and ground for jurisdiction pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a). 

“When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Federal Rule of Procedure

12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.

 Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing

Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir. 1989)). Courts

construe liberally complaints drafted by pro se plaintiffs. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358,

363 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, as Plaintiff has not stated the basis for jurisdiction, it is

appropriate to consider whether either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction

exists based on the facts alleged in his Complaint.

A. Diversity Jurisdiction

Case 2:08-cv-02132-ROS Document 43 Filed 07/16/09 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

- 3 -

Jurisdiction for reason of diversity of citizenship is vested by 28 U.S.C. § 1332 which

grants federal district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. Id. 

Defendant states that he is an Arizona citizen. Horowitch Aff., Def. Ex. 1. Plaintiff

does not state his citizenship. However, he has an Arizona address and all actions that are

the basis of this suit (i.e., Plaintiff seeking and receiving medical treatment from Defendant)

took place in Arizona. Plaintiff’s Complaint states that he was participating in a Vocational

Rehabilitation program based in Arizona and his exhibits show that he applied for disability

in Arizona, suggesting that he is a citizen of the state. Pl. Ex. 12. Nor does Plaintiff allege

that either he or Defendant is not an Arizona citizen in his response. Accordingly, there is

no basis to suggest that either Plaintiff or Defendant are non-Arizona citizens. 

Further, Plaintiff does not make a specific monetary demand, meaning that there is no

way to determine whether the amount in controversy requirement is met. Therefore, on the

face of the complaint and the facts presented, this Court does not have jurisdiction through

diversity of citizenship. 

B. Federal Question Jurisdiction

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

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

absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’

which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on

the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482

U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Jurisdiction may not be sustained on a theory that the plaintiff has

not advanced.” Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 809, n. 6

(1986). 

Here, Plaintiff makes no mention of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor

pleads the elements of any such claim. Insofar as he does present a specific claim against

Defendant, it appears to be a medical malpractice claim, or something akin to it. Such claims

are generally decided under state law. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 12-562 et seq. 

Case 2:08-cv-02132-ROS Document 43 Filed 07/16/09 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

1

 Plaintiff has several motions pending that seem, in effect, to be asking for a default

judgment due to Defendant’s alleged late response. However, a district court that lacks

subject matter jurisdiction also lacks jurisdiction to enter a default judgment. See, e.g., In

re Mystic Tank Lines Corp., 544 F.3d 524, 528 (3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, upon finding

that federal jurisdiction is lacking, the issue becomes moot.

- 4 -

As such, Plaintiff has not meant his burden of proving jurisdiction.1 Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s suit is

DISMISSED. 

DATED this 16th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02132-ROS Document 43 Filed 07/16/09 Page 4 of 4