Lopez v. Hay, 3:20-cv-00171

Background

Defendant Bradley Hay, an anesthesiologist with a history of drug diversion, administered sufentanil/fentanyl during Robert Lopez’s January 27, 2017 surgery; Lopez later had unusual postoperative pain and died months after the surgery.
Hay overdosed the same day after diverting drugs from another patient; the Medical Board later filed an Accusation and Hay surrendered his license.
UC San Diego Hospital staff allegedly knew or suspected Hay’s diversion, did not notify Hay’s patients or investigate whether diversion harmed them, and Plaintiffs (Cynthia Lopez, as successor-in-interest and individually) learned of Hay’s conduct in May 2018.
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Apr. 22, 2020) asserting five causes of action: UCL, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, § 1983 denial of access to courts (Fourth), and § 1983 conspiracy (Fifth).
Hospital Defendants and Hay moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court dismissed the Fifth Cause of Action with prejudice, dismissed the Fourth Cause of Action without prejudice for lack of standing (no actual injury / no adequately pleaded underlying malpractice claim), then sua sponte dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Section 1983 — denial of access to courts (backward-looking)	Concealment of Hay’s diversion thwarted timely malpractice litigation and caused loss/deterioration of evidence, so Lopez suffered actual injury	No underlying malpractice claim pleaded or litigated; without an underlying claim there is no actual injury for an access-to-courts claim	Dismissed without prejudice: plaintiff failed to plead the underlying malpractice claim or show actual injury/standing under Christopher and Lewis
Section 1983 — conspiracy to violate civil rights	Alleged concerted concealment by hospital staff and others to deprive plaintiffs of access to courts	Conspiracy claim defective and parties agreed dismissal appropriate	Dismissed with prejudice: parties jointly requested dismissal; claim not retained
Federal-question jurisdiction under Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule	Federal regulations (controlled substances, Medicare/VA involvement) are implicated by UCL and thus federal question exists	State-law claims can be resolved without deciding federal issues; federal law is not a necessary element of the claims	No federal-question jurisdiction: federal issues are not necessarily dispositive of state-law claims; Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule not satisfied
Diversity and supplemental jurisdiction	FAC asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332	FAC does not allege amount in controversy over $75,000 and lacks complete diversity; no surviving federal claims for § 1367 hook	No diversity or supplemental jurisdiction: dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (backward-looking access-to-courts claim requires pleading the underlying claim and a remedy unique to the access claim)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (standing for access-to-courts claims requires actual injury from denial of access)
Delew v. Wagner, 143 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1998) (access claim requires that defendants’ cover-up rendered available state-court remedies ineffective)
Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (a federal issue embedded in a state claim does not automatically create federal-question jurisdiction)
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal jurisdiction requires that federal law be a necessary element, not merely an alternative theory)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof)
Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes facial and factual attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction)