Garot v. Cnty. of San Diego
| Decision Date | 05 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 19-cv-01650-H-AGS |
| Parties | COLLEEN GAROT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1-20, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM
[Doc. No. 65.]
On December 10, 2020, Defendants Coastal Hospitalist Medical Associates, Friedrike Von Lintig, M.D., Angelito Dela Cruz, and Coast Correctional Medical Group filed a motion to dismiss Defendant County of San Diego's amended cross-claim for declaratory relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 65.) On December 14, 2020, the Court took the matter under submission. (Doc. No. 67.) On December 18, 2020, Defendant Quoc Tran filed a notice ofjoinder in the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 69.) On December 28, 2020, the County filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 70.) On December 30, 2020, Moving Defendants filed their reply. (Doc. No. 71.) For the reasons below, the Court denies Defendants Coastal Hospitalist, Von Lintig, Dela Cruz, Coast Correction and Iran's motion to dismiss the County's cross-claim for declaratory relief.
Background
The following facts are taken from the allegations in Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of Colleen Garot by Thomas Rainey as her court appointed conservator. (Doc. No. 53, FAC ¶ 5.) Plaintiff Garot brings claims against Defendants County of San Diego; Sheriff William D. Gore; Steven Block; Arthur Doherty; Quoc Tran, M.D.; Michael Stewart, Ph.D; Friedrike Von Lintig, M.D.; Angelito Dela Cruz; Yaowaluck Hagg; Susan Anguitay; Leah Gache; Susan Conrad; Myra Rada-Gragasin; Christine Eser; M. Germono; Melissa Grant; Mabel Domingo; Ma Estavillo; Edna Gomez-Sanchez; Helen Salter; Coastal Hospitalist Medical Associates; and Liberty Healthcare of California, Inc. (Id. at 1.)
On April 13, 2018, San Diego Sheriff's deputies Block and Doherty were dispatched to Colleen Garot's residence. (Doc. No. 53, FAC ¶ 31.) Upon arrival, the deputies found Plaintiff with "facial and head injuries, including a black left eye and bruising, abrasions" on her forehead. (Id. ¶ 32.) The deputies discovered that Ms. Garot had an outstanding warrant for her arrest. (Id. ¶ 31.) The deputies arrested Ms. Garot and transported her to the county jail. (Id. ¶ 33.) A picture of Ms. Garot taken at the time of her booking into the county jail shows her with a black eye and bruising on her forehead.
Upon arrival at the county jail, Nurse Hagg performed an intake assessment of Ms. Garot and filled out the Standard Medical Screening form. (Id. ¶ 35.) Twelve hours later, Ms. Garot was seen by Nurse Practitioner Dela Cruz, "who noted the bruising around Ms. Garot's left eye and on her forehead." (Id. ¶ 38.)
The next morning, April 14, 2018, at about 7:00 a.m. Ms. Garot was evaluated by Nurse Anguitay and given an ice pack for her black eye. (Id. ¶ 39.) Later that day, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Ms. Garot was seen by Dr. Tran. (Id. ¶ 41.)
The following day, April 15, 2018, Ms. Garot was placed in a safety cell and scheduled to see a psychologist. (Id. ¶ 43.) At approximately 5:00 p.m. that day,psychologist Dr. Stewart saw Ms. Garot and noted that she was "low risk" and should be seen again the following day. (Id. ¶ 45.)
The following morning, April 16, 2018, Ms. Garot was observed "walking around her cell naked" and attempting to "climb the wall." (Id. ¶ 47.) Later that morning, around 11:20 a.m., a county employee found Ms. Garot in her cell "laying on her back with 'foamy like saliva coming out from her mouth.'" (Id. ¶ 48.) At that point, paramedics were called, and Ms. Garot was transported to the emergency room at Sharp Memorial Hospital where she was diagnosed with a left basilar skull fracture, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, encephalopathy after traumatic brain injury, subdural hematoma, and seizure. (Id. ¶¶ 48-49.) Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to obtain or furnish medical care to Ms. Garot when multiple employees knew or had reason to know that she had suffered from severe head trauma, Ms. Garot is now completely incapacitated and has suffered damages. (Id. ¶ 50.)
On May 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1-2, Compl.) On August 30, 2019, Defendant the County removed the action to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) In the operative complaint, Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts five causes of action for: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Deliberate Indifference to a Substantial Risk of Harm to Health; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Liability for Unconstitutional Custom, Practice, or Police; (3) Professional Negligence under California Government Code § 844.6(d); (4) Failure to Summon Medical Care under California Government Code § 845.6; and (5) negligence under California law. (Doc. No. 53, FAC ¶¶ 51-96.)
On September 10, 2020, Defendant County of San Diego filed cross-claims against several Co-Defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) equitable indemnity; and (3) declaratory relief. (Doc. No. 34.) On November 23, 2020, the Court denied DefendantsCoastal Hospitalist, Von Lintig, Dela Cruz, and Coast Correction's motion to dismiss the County's cross-claim for declaratory relief without prejudice. (Doc. No. 61.)
On December 4, 2020, the County filed amended cross-claims against the cross-claim Defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) equitable indemnity; and (3) declaratory relief. (Doc. No. 64.) By the present motion, Defendants Coastal Hospitalist, Von Lintig, Dela Cruz, Coast Correction, and Tran move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the County's cross-claim for declaratory relief. (Doc. No. 65-1 at 6.)
Discussion
In the amended cross-claims, the County alleges a cross-claim for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against all of the cross-claim Defendants. (Doc. No. 64 ¶¶ 37-40.) Specifically, the County seeks "a declaration of the respective liabilities of the parties for the damages Plaintiff has alleged in this action, and a declaration of Cross-claim Defendants' responsibility for indemnification or contribution to the County for the sum or sums which the County may be compelled to pay and for which Cross-claim Defendants have been determined to be responsible." (Id. ¶ 39.) Moving Defendants move to dismiss this cross-claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 65-1 at 10-14.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a court to dismiss claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks can be either facial or factual." White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).
Here, Moving Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion focuses solely on the allegations inthe County's amended cross-claims, and, thus, they make a facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1). (See Doc. No.65-1 at 10-13.) "In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack motion, a court must assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Strojnik v. Kapalua Land Co. Ltd, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1082 (D. Haw. 2019) (citing Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003)); see Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2003); Rimac v. Duncan, 319 F. App'x 535, 536 (9th Cir. 2009).
Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The Supreme Court has explained that in determining whether the claimant's allegations are sufficient to state a claim for declaratory relief "the question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941); accord MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007); see also Wi2Wi, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-06995-BLF, 2020 WL 4913489, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2020) .
In the amended cross-claims, the County alleges that it has requested indemnification or contribution from the Cross-Defendants as to Plaintiff's claims in this action, but the Cross-Defendants "have denied the County's requests for indemnity and contribution." (Doc. No. 64 ¶ 24.) The County further alleges that: "An actual controversyhas arisen and now exists between the County and Crossclaim Defendants in that the County contends that (1) responsibility for the damages Plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial