Rodriguez v. Well Path
2:19-cv-02074
| D. Nev. | Mar 29, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Michael Rodriguez filed this action in forma pauperis in December 2019; the operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint.
- Defendants include Naphcare, Dr. Harry Duran, Kendra Meyer, Lee Meisner, and several others; four defendants (Naphcare, Duran, Meyer, Meisner) moved to dismiss.
- Defendants argued claim and issue preclusion based on an earlier, related case Rodriguez v. Naphcare (filed 2017) and also contended some claims were time-barred.
- The earlier 2017 case centers on alleged failures to treat chronic spinal pain; the instant complaint alleges additional or different conduct including an untreated hydrocele, delayed CT/evaluation, and Meisner’s refusal to implement a proposed plan in Dec. 2018.
- The court found no final judgment on the merits in the earlier case and identified factual differences between the actions; it also concluded the claim against Meisner was timely because the original 2019 complaint alleged the relevant December 2018 conduct and later amendments relate back.
- Court orders: motion to dismiss denied; Plaintiff’s extension requests and Naphcare’s nunc pro tunc reply leave granted; Plaintiff’s stay motion denied; parties ordered to meet and confer and file a revised discovery plan and scheduling order within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim or issue preclusion bars the instant claims | Rodriguez: claims here are different or accrued after the prior suit and thus not precluded | Defendants: the instant claims arise from the same underlying facts as the 2017 case and thus are precluded; denial of leave to amend in the prior case amounts to a final disposition | Denied — defendants failed to show a final judgment on the merits in the earlier case and factual differences exist, so preclusion does not apply |
| Whether the claims in this case are the same as those that could have been brought in the 2017 case | Rodriguez: current allegations (e.g., hydrocele, delayed CT) differ from the prior case’s focus on chronic spinal pain | Defendants: underlying factual nucleus is substantially the same, so claims could have been brought earlier | Held that many claims are distinguishable; court found factual differences that defeat preclusion |
| Whether the claim against Meisner is time-barred | Rodriguez: Meisner’s December 2018 conduct was alleged in the original 2019 complaint, so the claim is timely and amendments relate back | Defendants: § 1983 claims are subject to a two-year limitations period and Meisner’s claim is untimely | Held that the Meisner claim is timely; original complaint alleged the conduct and Rule 15(c) relation back applies |
| Whether the case should be stayed pending resolution of procedural issues (motion to dismiss, suggestion of death, discovery access) | Rodriguez: requests stay because of pending motion, suggestion of death for Dr. Duran, and limited access to legal materials and disclosures | Defendants: opposed (argued procedural posture did not justify stay) | Denied — motion to dismiss resolved; court acknowledged discovery access concerns and ordered parties to meet and confer and submit a revised discovery plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (on motion to dismiss, court accepts plaintiff’s factual allegations as true)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (federal common law governs preclusive effect of federal judgments and sets framework for claim preclusion)
- Media Rts. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (party asserting preclusion bears the burden; claims accruing after the first suit are not precluded)