Dunn v. Hosfeditu et al

Filing 42

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS MOOT Re Docket No. 30 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 2/13/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MICHAEL DUNN,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS MOOT

v.

9

Re: Dkt. No. 30
MARGRET HOSFEDITU, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-01562-HSG

Pending before the Court is the motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed by Defendants

12
13

Margaret Hoffeditz, Kennalee Gable,1 employees of California’s Department of Health Care

14

Services (“DHCS”), and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as the Governor of the

15

State of California (“Defendants”). Dkt. No. 30. Because of a recent change in the applicable

16

law, the Court finds that the action is moot and that the Court accordingly lacks jurisdiction.

17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

On March 29, 2016, pro se plaintiff Michael Dunn (“Plaintiff”) brought this action to

19

prevent Defendants from using the Medi-Cal Estate Recovery Program once he died to recover

20

from his estate the cost of Medi-Cal services that he received since age 55. Plaintiff had been

21

enrolled in Medi-Cal for a brief period after his application was approved in February 2011. Dkt.

22

No. 1 & Ex. 1 at 1. During that time, Plaintiff received Medi-Cal payments for: (1) Fee for

23

Service Claims; (2) Medicare Part B Premiums; (3) Partnership Health Plan of California; and (4)

24

Denti-Cal Premiums. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1 at 17.
In their motion for judgment on the pleadings, however, Defendants concede that the

25
26

Medi-Cal Estate Recovery Program has changed significantly since Plaintiff filed this action. The

27
28

1

The complaint misspells Ms. Hoffeditz and Mr. Gable’s names. Dkt. No. 1.

1

California Legislature passed Senate Bill 833 in 2016, which limited the Medi-Cal Estate

2

Recovery Program for members who die after January 1, 2017. See 2015 Cal. S.B. No. 833, § 22,

3

Cal. 2015–2016 Regular Session (enacted). For those members, DHCS may now only recover

4

from their estate “for those services required to be collected under federal law.” Cal. Welf. &

5

Inst. Code § 14009.5(a)(1), (b) (emphasis added). Federal law, in turn, only requires the state to

6

recover payments made for members 55 years of age or older for limited services, including

7

“nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and

8

prescription drug services.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(1)(A), (B)(i).

9

Defendants acknowledge that in light of the amendments to Welfare & Institutions Code
§ 14009.5, they cannot recover any of the Medi-Cal costs at issue in this action. During a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

telephonic status conference on January 19, 2016, Defendants agreed to send Plaintiff a letter

12

explaining the change in the law and its effect on his case. See Dkt. No. 40. Defendants sent

13

Plaintiff this letter on January 23, 2017. See Dkt. No. 41.

14

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

15

Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to “actual, ongoing

16

cases or controversies.” Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Lewis

17

v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). To sustain jurisdiction, “[a] case or

18

controversy must exist at all stages of review, not just at the time the action is filed.” Id. “A case

19

may become moot . . . when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally

20

cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. This Court is “without power to decide questions that

21

cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before [it].” Oregon v. F.E.R.C., 636 F.3d 1203,

22

1206 (9th Cir. 2011).

23

III.

DISCUSSION

24

Here, the California Legislature changed the law for Estate Recovery Programs shortly

25

after Plaintiff filed his complaint. As of January 1, 2017, Defendants cannot recover from

26

Plaintiff’s estate any of the Medi-Cal costs that Plaintiff identifies: Plaintiff does not allege, and

27

the records do not show, that any of the Medi-Cal services he received since age 55 constitute

28

“nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and
2

1

prescription drug services.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(1)(A), (B)(i). Consequently, there is no

2

longer a live case or controversy and this action is moot.

3

IV.

4

For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED as moot. The clerk is directed to close

5
6
7

CONCLUSION

the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/13/2017

8
9
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3