N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JEANNETTE M A R TELLO, M .D.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
and DANIEL M AR C US, M .D.; NANC Y W AY, M .D., individua

lly and on be ha lf of othe r C a lifornia

phy sic ia ns a nd surge ons, Pla i ntiffs,
v. M AR Y WATANAB E, in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s Dire c tor of the De pa

rtm e nt of M ana ge d He a lth C a

re ; W ILLIAM J. PR ASIFKA, in his offic i a l c a pa c ity a s Exe c utive Dire c t or of the M e dic a l B oa rd of C a lifornia ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-55826 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-08057-GW -AGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge H. W

u, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# F IL ED MAR 11 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d M arc h 11, 2024 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Je anne tte M arte l lo a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing he r a c tion 1 a ga i n st the Exe c utive Dire c tor of the M e d i c a l B oa rd of C a lifornia

and the D ire c tor of the C a lifornia De pa rtm e nt of M ana ge d He a lth C are (DM HC ) in the i r offic ia l c a

pa c itie s. W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing M arte l lo’ s C la im s 1, 2, 4, a nd 5
a s m oot be c a

use of the e na c tm e nt of the No Surprise s Ac t 2 (NSA). Se e W . C oast Se afood Proc e

s sors Ass’n v
. N

at. Re s. De f. C ounc il, Inc
. , 643 F.3d 701, 704 (9th C ir. 2011); W

olfson v . Bramme r , 616 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th C ir. 2010). M arte llo’ s c la im s we re pre m ise d on the Patie nt Prote c tion a n d Afforda

ble C a re Ac t 3 (AC A)
and its purporte d

pre e m p tion of C a lifornia

la w, but M arte llo re c ogniz e s tha t the

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 While M arte llo ha d two c o-pla intiffs in the distric t c ourt, only

M arte llo’ s c la im s a re be fore us. Se e 2 8 U.S.C . § 1654; Fe d. R . App. P. 3(c )(1)(A); Torre s v . Oak land Sc av e nge r C

o . , 487 U.S. 312, 314, 108 S. Ct. 2405, 2407, 101 L. Ed. 2d 285 (1988); Simon v . Hartford Life , Inc
. , 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th C ir. 2008). 2 No Surprise s Ac t, Tit. I of Div. B B of the C onsolida te d Appropria

tions Ac t, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Sta t. 1182, 2757 (2020). 3 Patie nt Prote c tion & Afforda ble C are Ac t, Pub. L. No. 111–148, § 1(a ), 124 Sta t. 119, 119 (2010). 2NSA is now governing fe de ra l la w. He r AC A -ba se d

c la i m s be c a

m e m oot upon the

“ ‘ c ha nge in the le ga l fram e work gove rning the c a se .’ ” N .Y. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc
. v . C ity of N e w York , 590 U.S. __, __, 140 S. Ct. 1525, 1526, 206 L. Ed. 2d 798 (2020) (pe r c uriam ); se e also Le w is v . C ont’l Bank

C orp. , 494 U.S. 472, 478–80, 110 S. C t. 1249, 1254–55, 108 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990); Bunk e r Ltd. P’ship v . Unite d State s (In reBunk

e r Ltd. P’ship ), 820 F.2d 308, 312 (9th C ir. 1987). No e xc e ption to m ootne ss a

pplie s be c a

use the AC A ha s sim

ply be e n supe rse de d

by ne w le gisla tion. Se e W

. C oast Se afood, 643 F.3d a

t 704–05. The distric t c ourt prope rly re fuse d to gra nt M a rte l lo le ave to a

m e nd those
c la im s be c a

use am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile
. Se e J

ohnson v . Buc k

le y , 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th C ir. 2004); se e also G re gg v . Haw . De

p’t of Pub. Safe ty , 870 F.3d 883, 887 (9th C ir. 2017). Eve n if M arte llo we re c orre c t tha t the NSA a llows ba la nc e billing in lim

ite d c irc um sta

nc e s, she did not a

rgue
— le t a l one show—

that she c ould a

m e nd he r c om

pla int to ple a d fa c ts indic ating tha t thosec irc um sta

nc e s a pply to he r or he r pra c tic e . Se e Spok e o, Inc . v . Robins , 578 U.S. 330, 339, 136 S. C t. 1540, 1548, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016); se e also Le w is , 494 U.S. a t 479–80, 110 S. C t. at 1254–55. Tha

t wa s suffic ie nt re a s on to de ny le ave to a

m e nd. Se e J ohnson , 356 F.3d a

t 1077; c f. Rosati v . Igbinoso , 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th C ir. 2015) (pe r c uriam ).
3The distric t c ourt like wise did not e rr in dismissing M arte llo’ s C la im 3
a ga inst theDire c tor of the DM HC on the ground tha t it wa s ba

rre d by c la im pre c lusion a

rising from

an e arlie r C a lifornia

judgm e nt a ga inst he r in the DM HC ’ s c ivil e nforc e m e nt a c tion. Se e Robi v . Fiv e Platte rs, Inc
. , 838 F.2d 318, 321–22 (9th C ir. 1988). Tha

t c ivil e nforc e m e n t a c tion re sulte d in a fina l judgm e n t on the
m e rits a nd involve d the sa

m e c a use of a c tion4 and the sa

m e pa rtie s 5 a s C la im

3. Se e S tate C omp. Ins. Fund v . Re ady

Link He althc are

, Inc
. , 264 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 68, 87 (C t. App. 2020). Nothing in this re c o rd sugge sts tha t the distric t judge ha

rbore d a ny im pe rm issiblebia s a ga inst M arte llo. Se e Lite k y v . Unite d State

s , 510 U.S. 540, 555–56, 114 S. C t . 1147, 1157–58, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994); Unite d State s v . Sibla , 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th C ir. 1980). W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l or m atte rs not spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in theope n ing brie f. Se e Padge tt
v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D. All pe nding m otions a re DE NIE D
.

4 Se e My c oge n C

orp. v . Monsanto C

o. , 51 P.3d 297, 306–07 (C a l. 2002). 5 Se e id. at 301; se e also LaC our v . Marshalls of C

al., LLC, 313 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 77, 90–91 (C t. App. 2023). 4