Dalavai v. University of California San Diego Health
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Dalavai v. Regents of the University of California (2026-08-04) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying a motion for default judgment. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to identify a protected property or liberty interest to support a due process claim and did not meet the high standard for Rule 60(b) relief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration“The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 60(b) relief, noting it is an extraordinary remedy. The court's substantive analysis correctly identifies that a statute governing hospital investigations does not automatically create a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest required for a due process claim. The plaintiff's argument that the court relied on a mistaken factual premise regarding the availability of state agency complaints is rejected because the court's prior order relied on the lack of a protected interest, not the state complaint process. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the high bar for Rule 60(b) relief and addresses the plaintiff's specific argument by clarifying the basis of the prior order (lack of protected interest vs. state complaint process). The reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent for both the procedural standard and the substantive due process requirement is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDAL JEROME DALAVAI, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01471-CAB-DDL Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. 13 RECONSIDERATION DONNA LOZA, et al., 14 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 99 and 102] 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff has filed two motions for reconsideration relating to the Court’s order 19 denying Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. [Doc. Nos. 99 and 102.] The Court 20 considers the amended motion. 21 “The moving party under Rule 60(b) is entitled to relief from judgment for the 22 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 23 discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; 24 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or 25 (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Am. Ironworks 26 & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). 27 28 1 Plaintiff, moving under prongs one and six, claims that the Court’s order rests on a 2 ||mistaken factual premise: that Plaintiff may still file a complaint under Cal. Health & 3 Safety Code § 1279.2. [Doc. No. 102 at 2.] Plaintiff misreads the Court’s order. In its 4 analysis of the legal justification for a default judgment, the Court explained that the past 5 || denial of Plaintiff's state agency complaint was not grounds for a showing of prejudice (an 6 || Fitel factor). [Doc. No. 97 at 6.] The crux of the Court’s analysis rested on the fact that 7 || Plaintiff cannot identify any property or liberty interest at issue in this case to sustain a due 8 || process claim. See Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 9 (9th Cir. 1998). The plain text of Section 1279.2 does not by itself create such a right. 10 || Moreover, the Court has been provided no authority, nor is it aware of any, that extends a 11 |/statute governing onsite hospital investigations to create a constitutional interest subject to 12 minimal requirements of procedural due process. 13 Relief pursuant to a Rule 60(b) motion is an extraordinary remedy “to be used 14 || sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., 15 || Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F, 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has 16 |/not met this standard. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. 17 18 It is SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: June 3, 2025 & Z 21 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28