de Jesus v. UnitedHealth Group

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Myrna de Jesus, No. CV-25-02701-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. UnitedHealth Group, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Myrna de Jesus filed a complaint alleging claims against defendant UnitedHealth Group. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

17 Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis but granting that application allows the court to determine whether she has stated any claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). She has not.

20 I. Factual Background 21 Sometime prior to March 2, 2021, plaintiff entered into an employment agreement with UnitedHealth. On March 2, 2021, UnitedHealth “knowingly and willfully breached” that agreement by “unjustifiably terminat[ing]” plaintiff’s employment. (Doc. 1 at 5.) That “termination was accompanied by racially discriminatory and derogatory remarks.” (Doc.

25 1 at 5.)

26 The same day plaintiff’s employment was terminated, UnitedHealth “published multiple false and defamatory statements,” including that plaintiff “had used profane language and exhibited hostile behavior toward patients.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) These statements were “disseminated to third parties,” although plaintiff does not allege how or when that dissemination occurred. (Doc. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges the “defamatory claims have persisted” as “recent employers” have “becom[e] aware of these accusation.” (Doc. 1 at 5.)

4 It is not clear what plaintiff means by alleging the “claims have persisted” and there are no allegations explaining how UnitedHealth continues to make the “false and defamatory statements.”

7 Finally, at some unidentified time UnitedHealth “failed to exercise basic security measures, thereby exposing Plaintiff’s confidential files to unauthorized access.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff does not provide any details explaining these allegations but according to plaintiff this “willful disregard for fundamental data protection protocols . . . constitutes gross negligence.” (Doc. 1 at 5.)

12 Based on these factual allegations plaintiff seeks to pursue claims for “breach of employment contract,” “slander per se,” and “negligence.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff seeks nine million dollars in damages. (Doc. 1 at 5.)

15 II. Analysis 16 When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may “dismiss the case at any time” if the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, plaintiff’s claims are either barred by the statute of limitations or not supported by sufficient factual allegations.

21 A. Breach of Employment Contract 22 Arizona has a one-year statute of limitations for claims asserting “breach of an oral or written employment contract.” A.R.S. § 12-541(3). Plaintiff alleges UnitedHealth breached the employment agreement on March 2, 2021. This suit was not filed until July 2025, more than three years beyond the statute of limitations. The claim for breach of employment contract is dismissed without leave to amend. See U.S. ex rel. Air Control Techs., Inc. v. Pre Con Indus., Inc., 720 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir. 2013) (allowing for dismissal when “the running of the statute [of limitations] is apparent on the face of the complaint”) (simplified).

2 B. Slander Per Se 3 Arizona has a one-year statute of limitations on claims for “libel or slander.” A.R.S.

4 § 12-541(1). Plaintiff alleges UnitedHealth first published the actionable statements in March 2021. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to sue for statements made at that time, her claim is barred by the statute of limitations. To the extent plaintiff may be attempting to allege UnitedHealth repeated the statements more recently than March 2021, she has not provided sufficient factual allegations identifying when or how UnitedHealth repeated the statements. Plaintiff’s “slander per se” claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

10 C. Negligence 11 Plaintiff’s negligence claim is based on UnitedHealth exposing “confidential files to unauthorized access.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) Even if the court assumes that mishandling plaintiff’s “confidential files” might support a claim for negligence, plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts explaining the basis for her claim. It is not sufficient for plaintiff merely to make an “an unadorned . . . the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

16 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This claim is also dismissed with leave to amend.

18 D. Amendment 19 Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her claims for slander and negligence. If plaintiff chooses to amend, the amended complaint must provide significantly more factual allegations identifying the basis for her claims. To state a plausible slander claim plaintiff’s amended complaint must identify the false statements, when and how they were published to a third party, and facts showing UnitedHealth either knew the statements were “false and defamatory” or it “recklessly disregarded or negligently failed to ascertain the truth or defamatory nature of the statement[s].” ZombieBox Int’l Inc. v. Generac Power Sys. Inc., 721 F. Supp. 3d 798, 804 (D. Ariz. 2024). To state a plausible negligence claim, plaintiff’s amended complaint must provide a more detailed factual background, including facts establishing UnitedHealth owed her a duty, the facts showing UnitedHealth breached that duty, and an explanation of the damages plaintiff suffered.

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH 5|| LEAVE TO AMEND. No later than August 15, 2025, plaintiff shall file an amended || complaint that complies with the requirements set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint is filed by that date.

8 Dated this Ist day of August, 2025.

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge -4-