Scutt v. UnitedHealth Ins. Co. & Subsidiaries
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 21-00323 JAO-RT |
| Parties | JASON SCUTT, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTH INSURANCE CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES; MAUI COMMUNITY CLINIC aka “MALAMA I KE OLA, ” Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND JOINDERS AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING
This action concerns alleged disability discrimination and the denial of health insurance coverage and medical treatment related to pro se Plaintiff Jason Scutt's (“Plaintiff”) gender affirming medical care. Defendants United HealthCare Insurance Company (“UHC”), LogistiCare Solutions, LLC (“LogistiCare”), Community Clinic of Maui Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, incorrectly named Maui Community Clinic aka “Malama I Ke Ola” (“CCM”) and Maui Medical Group (“MMG”) (collectively “Defendants”) seek dismissal for (1) failure to state a claim; (2) lack of supplemental jurisdiction; and (3) failure to comply with Court orders. Alternatively Defendants move to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and Exhibit A to the SAC. Plaintiff requests leave to amend the SAC.
The Court elects to decide these motions without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motions to dismiss and related joinders. ECF Nos. 27, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading. ECF No. 64.
This is the tenth lawsuit filed by Plaintiff in this district since January 2020. See Scutt v. Norton, CIVIL NO. 21-00280 JAO-KJM, 2021 WL 5989107, at *5 n.7 (D. Haw. Dec. 17, 2021) (“Norton”) (listing cases). In this case, Plaintiff presents a wide range of allegations largely pertaining to her dissatisfaction with transgender-related medical care and health insurance coverage. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff claims that she has been mistreated and denied proper medical care and insurance coverage for procedures that are critical to her gender reassignment. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that she was unable to utilize transportation services because LogistiCare and UHC would not communicate via email or text message to accommodate her hearing loss and tinnitus, and that she could not equally benefit from these services due to her hearing problems and body/gender dysphoria. Id. ¶¶ 91-92.
Plaintiff commenced this action on July 26, 2021 against UHC and CCM, asserting four claims: (1) medical malpractice related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and “Hawaii state law § 431”; (2) defamation; (3) violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (4) violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). ECF No. 1. On July 28, 2021, the Court issued an Order (1) Dismissing Complaint and (2) Denying IFP Application. See Scutt v. UnitedHealth Ins. Co., CIVIL NO. 21-00323 JAO-RT, 2021 WL 3195018 (D. Haw. July 28, 2021). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Title VI and Eighth Amendment claims with prejudice, and dismissed her ADA claim with leave to amend. See Id. at *2-3.
The Court declined to address Plaintiff's state law claims at the time. See Id. at *3. Although Plaintiff also invoked diversity jurisdiction, the Court cautioned that her jurisdictional allegations were deficient and that any amended pleading must provide the parties' citizenships. See Id. at *4. The Court explained that diversity jurisdiction cannot exist if Plaintiff and CCM are citizens of Hawai‘i. See Id. Plaintiff was prohibited from adding parties (except to identify UHC subsidiaries referenced in the Complaint) or claims without leave of court through a formal motion. See id.
On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against UHC and CCM, alleging malpractice under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 431:10a-118.3, defamation, and violations of the ADA. ECF No. 11. CCM then filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement. ECF No. 15.
At a September 27, 2021 status conference, CCM agreed to withdraw the motion and permit the filing of a second amended complaint. ECF No. 22. Magistrate Judge Rom Trader imposed eight requirements regarding the formatting and content of the SAC. See id.
On October 31, 2021, Plaintiff filed the SAC against Defendants. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) medical malpractice under “HRS 431” against all Defendants; (2) defamation against CCM and UHC; and (3) violation of Title III of the ADA against UHC and LogistiCare. Id.
Defendants responded with motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 27, 34, 36, 41. UHC joined in CCM's and LogistiCare's motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 38-39. CCM filed a joinder to LogistiCare's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff opposed the motions to dismiss, see ECF Nos. 33, 49-51, and Defendants filed replies. ECF Nos. 52, 60-62.
On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading. ECF No. 64. Defendants filed oppositions on February 11, 2022. ECF Nos. 66- 68.
At the Court's request, UHC and LogistiCare filed supplemental memoranda regarding Plaintiff's ADA claim on February 18, 2022. ECF Nos. 70-71.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(1), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims alleged in the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A jurisdictional attack pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) may be facial or factual. See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). A facial attack challenges the sufficiency of the allegations contained in a complaint to invoke federal jurisdiction, while a factual attack “disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id.
FRCP 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “the court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true, ” and “[d]ismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged.” UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)) (alteration in original). However, conclusory allegations of law, unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988.
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Facial plausibility exists “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The tenet that the court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint does not apply to legal conclusions. See Id. As such, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]'-‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Id. at 679 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)) (some alterations in original).
If dismissal is ordered, the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend unless it is clear that the claims could not be saved by amendment. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
I. Motions To Dismiss
Defendants advance multiple grounds for dismissal: (1) CCM moves to dismiss the medical malpractice and defamation claims for failure to state a claim and alternatively requests that the Court strike Exhibit A to the SAC and other extraneous allegations set forth in the SAC, ECF Nos. 27, 52; (2) LogistiCare seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Common Rule and ADA claims for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with the Court's orders, and/or alternatively seeks an order striking portions of the SAC and Exhibit A to the SAC, ECF Nos. 34, 60, 70; (3) UHC contends that Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims against it, ECF Nos. 36 61, 71; and (4) MMG moves to dismiss Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim (the only claim asserted against it) for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, ECF Nos. 41, 62. A. Exhibits To The SAC And Oppositions
LogistiCare joined by UHC and MMG, moves to strike Exhibit A to the SAC because it is not a written instrument as contemplated by FRCP 10(c). ECF No. 34 at 19-20; ECF Nos. 39, 43. “A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c). “A written instrument within the meaning of Rule 10(c) is a document evidencing legal rights or duties or giving formal expression to a legal act or agreement, such as a deed, will, bond, lease, insurance policy or...
To continue reading
Request your trial