Dalavai v. University of California San Diego Health et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE With Prejudice and Closing Case. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 11/18/2022.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
6

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RANDAL JEROME DALAVAI,

Case No.: 22-CV-1471-CAB-WVG
Plaintiff,

7
8

v.

9

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN
DIEGO HEALTH et al.,

10
11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE AND CLOSING CASE

Defendants.

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
22-CV-1471-CAB-WVG

1

not an attorney and, therefore, may not assert any claims on behalf of the estate. “[C]ourts

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

the motion to amend is DENIED.1

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
18

Accordingly, this case is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk
of Court shall CLOSE the case.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: November 18, 2022

22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Should Plaintiff obtain counsel on behalf of the Estate, the Estate may file a new complaint with a new
case number, but only as to the hospital(s), not the physicians. West v. Huxol, 135 F.Supp.3d 590 (W.D.
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.
2
22-CV-1471-CAB-WVG