Loucks v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-01216-EMC |
| Parties | PATRICIA LOUCKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
This case arises out of the circumstances surrounding the death of Shawn Loucks ("Mr. Loucks"), who died at a UCSF hospital on February 23, 2019, after also receiving medical care at Kaiser Santa Rosa on February 10 and 20, 2019. Plaintiffs are Patricia Loucks, Donna Barry, Luke Barry, Christina Keeney-Foster, Eric Foster, Pete Figone, Dawn Loucks, Ashley Loucks, Tony Marks, and Neno Meola-Marks (collectively "Plaintiffs"). Defendants are Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc, The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (together "Kaiser"), American Medical Response ("AMR"), and the Regents of the University of California ("the Regents" or "the UC Regents") (all collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiffs assert claims for medical malpractice, dependent adult abuse, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional misconduct, violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA"), and wrongful death. See Docket No. 1 ("Complaint") ¶ 1. Kaiser moves to compel arbitration of all of Plaintiffs' claims against Kaiser, or in the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint. See Docket No. 4 ("Kaiser Mot."). The UC Regents assert immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and therefore move to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction; they alternatively seek dismissal for failure to state a claim, move for a more definite statement, and move to strike certain portions of the complaint. See Docket No. 14 ("UC Mot.").
Plaintiffs allege the following. Prior to the events described herein, Mr. Loucks (age 51) was "healthy and athletic." Complaint ¶ 28. On February 10, 2019, Mr. Loucks suddenly became dizzy and nauseous. Id. He was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Kaiser Santa Rosa at around 2:45p.m. Id. ¶¶ 2, 28. Sometime after 10p.m., he was diagnosed with a stroke and sent home; Plaintiffs contend that no tPA clot buster was administered. Id. Ten days later, Mr. Loucks suffered another stroke and was again transported by ambulance to the emergency room at Kaiser Santa Rosa. Id. ¶ 3. "After several hours," the medical staff determined that Mr. Loucks required "a higher level of care." Id. Plaintiffs assert that "[a]ttempts were made to obtain a critical care ambulance" to transfer Mr. Loucks to either UCSF or the Redwood City Kaiser, but "[t]here were repeated delays in obtaining the ambulance." Id. Mr. Loucks was transferred to UCSF in the early morning hours of February 21, 2019, where he died on February 23, 2019. Id. ¶ 3, 6.
Plaintiffs allege that Kaiser "breached the standard of medical care and recklessly discharged [Mr. Loucks] after the first visit," and they assert that "further hospitalization and close monitoring . . . in all probability would have prevented his condition from deteriorating and causing . . . the second and fatal stroke." Id. ¶ 4. They contend that "[t]he second Kaiser visit also involved inappropriate delays in diagnosis and treatment, including but not limited to timely critical care transfer." Id. ¶ 5. They also assert that Kaiser "had a pattern and practice of delaying ambulance transfers" and "a pattern and practice of failing and refusing to transport critically ill patients to the most readily available lifesaving critical care." Id. ¶ 6. Instead, the company "avoided transfer to non-KAISER facilities and avoided using non-KAISER ambulances even when it greatly increased the risk to their patients." Id. ¶ 6.
At the same time, Plaintiffs also allege that Id. ¶ 8. This caused Kaiser personnel to "frantically search for an alternative critical care ambulance." Id. Ultimately, the only critical care ambulance that was located "had to come from hours away in Sacramento." Id. Plaintiffs allege that "[t]hese critical care delays were agonizing for the family members [who were present] who recognized that these delays were causing severe harm" to Mr. Loucks; these delays furnish the basis for the Plaintiffs' negligent infliction of emotion distress claims. Id.
Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in federal court on February 19, 2020. See Docket No. 1. On April 21, 2020, the Regents filed a Motion to Dismiss (pursuant to both Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6)) and for a More Definite Statement, as well as a Motion to Strike. See Docket No. 14. On May 11, 2020, Kaiser filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Case and in the Alternative to Dismiss. See Docket No. 29. These motions were heard on June 18, 2020. See Docket Nos. 29, 31. On May 22, 2020, American Medical Response filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement, to Dismiss, and to Strike. See Docket No. 35. That motion is scheduled to be heard on July 23, 2020. See Docket No. 44.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a court must dismiss an action where it does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. While the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction, "the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss." Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The Court must accept uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and resolve all disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff. Id.
The UC Regents seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that they are immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. See UC Mot. at 8, 10. "The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court." Beentjes v. Placer Cty. Air Pollution Control Dist., 397 F.3d 775, 777 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001)). This rule "extends to suits by citizens against their own state and certain actions against state agencies and state instrumentalities." Holz v. Nenana City Pub. Sch. Dist., 347 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have both previously found in numerous contexts that the UC Regents are instrumentalities of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Regents of the Univ. of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 431 (1997) [hereinafter Doe] (); BV Eng'g v. Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 858 F.2d 1394, 1395 (9th Cir. 1988) () ("The University of California and the Board of Regents are considered to be instrumentalities of the state and therefore enjoy the same immunity as the state of California."); see also Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Bull v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 257 (1934)) ("It has long been established that UC is an instrumentality of the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment."). Notably, these cases do not involve action by the University of California in a unique governmental role different from other public entities; instead, they involve its role e.g. as a prospective employer (Doe), alleged copyright infringer (BV), and as law enforcement (Thompson). Across various functions, the courts have held the Regents enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity.
In addition, in a case involving allegations of inadequate medical care furnished by faculty of UCSF, Judge Wilken concluded that "[the] Regents are considered instrumentalities of the state and therefore, absent waiver, enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. Herbert v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. C 08-5748 CW, 2009 WL 691067, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009) (citing BVEngineering, 858 F.2d at 1395). In Herbert, the plaintiff alleged that he sought care for knee pain at San Francisco General Hospital, where he was treated by physicians who were faculty members at UCSF. Id. He alleged that the doctors first diagnosed him with a "sprang knee," but that two days later, he returned to the hospital and was diagnosed with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus and had seven surgeries to his left leg. Id. He named the UC Regents as defendants, and the Regents asserted Eleventh Amended immunity. In concluding that immunity applied, Judge Wilken noted that the assertion was "supported by controlling case law" and that "[t]he Eleventh Amendment generally renders states immune from private damages claims brought in federal court." Id. (). Judge Wilken added that "[t]he bar is generally absolute and covers states as well as their 'instrumentalities.'" Id. (citing Doe, 519 U.S. at 429).]
Even if the issue were to be revisited and examined anew under the Ninth Circuit's...
To continue reading
Request your trial