Court Opinion

ID: 9937407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:01:17.369313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:55.875788
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          FEB 9 2024
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THEODORE CABANISS, Guardian ad                    No.    23-55297
Litem to Minor Child T.C.,
                                                  D.C. No.
                 Plaintiff-Appellant,             3:22-cv-01242-WQH-AHG

 v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
PFIZER, INC.,

                 Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 9, 2024**

Before: BENNETT, BADE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

      Theodore Cabaniss, guardian ad litem to minor child T.C., appeals from the

district court’s order granting Pfizer, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. T.C. v. Pfizer, Inc.,

No. 22-cv-01242-WQH-AHG, 2022 WL 17578871 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Cabaniss does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that the Public

Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (the “PREP Act”) immunized Pfizer

from the claim asserted in the complaint.1 See id. at *2; see also 42 U.S.C. § 247d-

6d(a)(1). On appeal, he fails to make any distinct arguments concerning the merits

of this determination. Cabaniss has never disputed that the PREP Act applies. For

example, he has never disputed that Pfizer is a “[c]overed person” under the PREP

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(i)(2), that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine allegedly

administered to T.C. is a “[c]overed countermeasure” under the PREP Act, id. at

§ 247d-6d(i)(1), or that the administration of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to T.C.

“played some role in bringing about or contributing to [T.C.’s injury].” Hampton

v. California, 83 F.4th 754, 763–64 (9th Cir. 2023); see 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1).

      1
         The district court granted Pfizer’s motion to dismiss because it found that
the PREP Act conferred immunity on Pfizer. T.C., 2022 WL 17578871, at *1–2.
While we agree with the district court that Pfizer enjoys PREP Act immunity, we
disagree that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Title 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(d)(1)
states: “Subject to subsection (f), the sole exception to the immunity from suit and
liability of covered persons set forth in subsection (a) shall be for an exclusive
Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical
injury proximately caused by willful misconduct, as defined pursuant to subsection
(c), by such covered person.” Section 247d-6d(e)(1) also provides that “[a]ny
action under subsection (d) shall be filed and maintained only in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.” But Cabaniss did not bring a claim
under § 247d-6d(d)—he brought a medical malpractice claim and did not dispute
Pfizer’s assertion that he “d[id] not assert a willful misconduct claim.” As we have
held, “the PREP Act is not a complete preemption statute” and thus does not
“displace the non-willful misconduct claims” brought under state law. Saldana v.
Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, 27 F.4th 679, 688 (9th Cir. 2022).

                                         2
Cabaniss’s failure to dispute the district court’s determination on these issues

results in a forfeiture of any related arguments. See United States v. Turchin, 21

F.4th 1192, 1198–99 (9th Cir. 2022).

      On appeal, Cabaniss presents several arguments that were not adequately

presented to the district court. He argues that the PREP Act violates the Fourteenth

Amendment and asserts that Pfizer is “guilty [under] criminal law, consumer

protection law and tort law,” and “that Pfizer is also guilty of reckless homicide

because [it] did not educate the public o[n] the dangers of the vaccine.” Cabaniss

forfeited these arguments by failing adequately to present them to the district court.

See Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004); see

also AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201, 1213–15 (9th Cir. 2020)

(explaining that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, we generally will not

consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal” and that “[a] party’s

unexplained failure to raise an argument that was indisputably available below is

perhaps the least ‘exceptional’ circumstance” (citations omitted)).

      Furthermore, in addition to failing to present any arguments based on the

Fourteenth Amendment in the district court, Cabaniss forfeited this argument on

appeal by failing to sufficiently develop it. Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139,

144 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating that issues not supported by argument in a pro se brief

are abandoned).

                                          3
AFFIRMED.

            4