Dalavai v. University of California San Diego Health
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Randal Dalavai v. University of California San Diego Health (2024-08-16) — vacated; 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 a pro se plaintiff's EMTALA complaint and subsequent motions to amend, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue individually and was prohibited from representing his deceased mother's estate. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and denied the motions to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Case dismissed with prejudice“For the reasons discussed in the hearing this case is HEREBY DISMISSED with prejudice as Plaintiff has not shown that he has Article III standing to bring a claim as an individual under 42 U.S.C. §13955dd, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may have as an individual.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a plaintiff must demonstrate Article III standing to bring a claim. The order notes that the plaintiff failed to show standing for his individual claim. Additionally, the court correctly declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once the federal claim was dismissed. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where the defect (lack of standing) is incurable. |
Motion to amend denied (Estate claim)“However, Plaintiff is not an attorney and, therefore, may not assert any claims on behalf of the estate. ... Accordingly, motion to amend is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the well-established rule that pro se litigants may only represent themselves and cannot act as representatives for others, including estates, unless they are licensed attorneys. The citation to Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc. supports this proposition. |
Amended Motion to Amend denied“To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert an individual claim under the EMTALA, the motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth above. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert state law claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction. ... To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert any claim on behalf of the Estate, the Amended Motion to amend is DENIED for the reasons set forth above.” | agree with court The court consistently applied its prior reasoning: lack of standing for individual EMTALA claims, lack of authority to represent the estate, and declination of supplemental jurisdiction for state claims. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on correct legal principles regarding standing and pro se representation. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' because it does not explicitly detail the specific facts from the hearing or the plaintiff's response that led to the conclusion that Article III standing was lacking (e.g., whether the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury distinct from his mother). It relies on the 'reasons discussed in the hearing,' which are not transcribed in the order itself. Additionally, the order cites a West District of Kentucky case for a proposition regarding EMTALA physician liability, which is persuasive but not binding on the Ninth Circuit; however, the proposition is widely accepted.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RANDAL JEROME DALAVAI, Case No.: 22-CV-1471-CAB-WVG 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 8 v. PREJUDICE AND CLOSING CASE 9 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO HEALTH et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Randal Jerome Dalavai filed the pro se complaint in this action seeking 14 monetary penalties from various defendants for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd 15 (“EMTALA”) in connection with an alleged emergency medical condition experienced by 16 Geetha Dalavai, who is Plaintiff’s mother. Geetha Dalavai is referred to as “Decedent” in 17 the complaint, and neither she nor her estate are a party to this lawsuit. On October 3, 18 2022, this Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) as to how Plaintiff has standing 19 under Article III of the Constitution. [Doc. No. 4.] On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed 20 a response to the OSC. [Doc. No. 11.] On November 17, 2022, an OSC hearing was held. 21 Plaintiff Randal Dalavai appeared pro se. [Doc. No. 12.] 22 For the reasons discussed in the hearing this case is HEREBY DISMISSED with 23 prejudice as Plaintiff has not shown that he has Article III standing to bring a claim as an 24 individual under 42 U.S.C. §13955dd, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental 25 jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may have as an individual. 26 On the day of the OSC hearing, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to 27 assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. §13955dd on behalf of the Estate of Geetha Dalavai, as 28 Plaintiff asserts he is now the executor of the Estate. [Doc. No. 13.] However, Plaintiff is 1 || not an attorney and, therefore, may not assert any claims on behalf of the estate. □□□□□□□□□ 2 || have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims 3 || on behalf of others in representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 4 ||664 (9th Cir. 2008); “[A] person who is unlicensed to practice law and who purports to 5 ||represent a decedent’s estate cannot appear in propria persona on behalf of the estate in 6 matters outside the probate proceedings.” Halstead v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. PG&E, No. 7 || EDCV 16-696-DMG-KK, 2017 WL 1496956, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13,2017). Accordingly, 8 motion to amend is DENIED.' 9 The day following the hearing, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Amend, 10 || claiming he was now seeking to amend his individual claim, as well as asserting a claim 11 |/on behalf of the Estate. [Doc. No. 14.] To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert an 12 ||individual claim under the EMTALA, the motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth 13 ||above. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert state law claims, the Court declines 14 supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff is free to pursue those claims in state court. To the 15 |/extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert any claim on behalf of the Estate, the Amended 16 || Motion to amend is DENIED for the reasons set forth above. 17 Accordingly, this case is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk 18 || of Court shall CLOSE the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 ||}Dated: November 18, 2022 € Z 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 ' Should Plaintiff obtain counsel on behalf of the Estate, the Estate may file a new complaint with a new 27 || case number, but only as to the hospital(s), not the physicians. West v. Huxol, 135 F.Supp.3d 590 (W.D. 3g || Ky- 2015) (EMTALA does not provide private cause of action against physicians). The Court does not take a position on whether such a complaint would be barred by the statute of limitations.