1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 RANDAL JEROME DALAVAI, Case No.: 22-CV-1992-CAB-WVG

13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 14 v. RECONSIDERATION

15 THE REGENTS, et al., [Doc. Nos. 29, 30, 31] 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Randal Dalavai, as successor in interest on behalf of his deceased mother, 19 Geetha Dalavai (“the Decedent”), sues Defendant The Regents, as representatives of UC 20 San Diego Health, for violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act 21 (“EMTALA”). Plaintiff also sues Defendants The Regents and The Elizabeth Hospice for 22 violation of three state law claims. Both The Regents and The Elizabeth Hospice filed 23 motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 11, 13]. The Court granted without leave to amend The 24 Regents’ motion to dismiss for failure to state an EMTALA claim, as Plaintiff’s EMTALA 25 claim is time barred and the facts presented in the Complaint failed to state a claim against 26 The Regents. The Court also granted The Elizabeth Hospice’s motion to dismiss on the 27 basis it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff’s state 28 law claims were dismissed without prejudice to being filed in state court. [Doc. No. 27]. 1 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 60(b). [Doc. Nos. 29, 30, 31].1 “The moving party under Rule 60(b) is 3 entitled to relief from judgment for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 4 surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, 5 or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 6 been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 7 operation of the judgment.” Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248

(9th Cir. 2001). 9 Plaintiff does not satisfy the requirements for reconsideration. In his motion, 10 Plaintiff restates his argument about leave to amend. Plaintiff also argues that his claim is 11 not barred by the statute of limitations, given the Court’s recognition in the dismissal order 12 of Plaintiff’s standing as the Decedent’s successor in interest. Plaintiff then attempts to 13 bring a new argument related to the Decedent’s patient status for purposes of determining 14 whether he establishes a cause of action under the EMTALA. The only argument necessary 15 to address here is whether Plaintiff’s status as successor in interest allows for relation back 16 to the complaint he filed in the lower numbered case. See 22-cv-1471-CAB-WVG. 17 Plaintiff cites one new case regarding the relation back of claims asserted by 18 successors in interest. See Est. of Garcia-Vasquez v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 19 06CV1322LABLSP,

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008). However, that case is 20 distinguishable from the facts here. In Estate of Garcia-Vasquez, the court found that 21 relation back could be appropriate in a singular case where a decedent’s successors in 22 interest would replace a plaintiff who improperly purported to represent a decedent’s estate. 23 Here, Plaintiff brought the lower numbered case (See 22cv1471-CAB-WVG) as himself, 24 which was dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing. He then brought new claims, as 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff filed the same motion on April 13, 2023 under two different names [Doc. No. 29 and 30]. Plaintiff then filed the same motion on April 14, 2023 [Doc. No. 31]. This order applies to all three 28 1 a new party, well after the statute of limitations deadline for his sole federal claim under 2 the EMTALA. Because it finds the EMTALA claim is time barred, the Court declines to 3 assess the merits of Plaintiff’s new EMTALA argument. 4 Ultimately, the Court echoes the following sentiment expressed by another district 5 judge that motions for reconsideration should not be used merely as an intermediate 6 “appeal” before taking a disputed ruling to the Ninth Circuit: 7 The Court cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Rules allowing for motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide litigants with a second 8 bite at the apple. Rather, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 9 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

, 890 (9th 10 Cir. 2000). In an adversarial system such as ours, more often than not one 11 party will win and one will lose. Generally, it follows that the losing party will be unhappy with the Court’s decision. Rarely does the losing party 12 believe that its position lacked merit, or that the Court was correct in ruling 13 against it. Rather than either accept the Court’s ruling or appeal it, it seems to have instead become de rigueur to file a motion for reconsideration. The 14 vast majority of these motions represent a simple rehash of the arguments 15 already made, although now rewritten as though the Court was the opposing party and its Order the brief to be opposed. It is easy for each litigant to 16 consider only his or her own motion, and the seemingly manifest injustice that 17 has been done to them. But the cumulative effect is one of abuse of the system and a drain on judicial resources that could be better used to address matters 18 that have not yet been before the Court once, let alone twice. 19 This is not to say that a motion for reconsideration is never well-taken. A 20 litigant should not shy from bringing to the Court’s attention changes in facts and circumstances that render a ruling no longer logical, an intervening 21 change in controlling authority, or other critical matters that the Rules provide 22 should be brought to the Court’s attention in this way. On this basis, motions for reconsideration should be few, far between, and narrowly focused. When 23 this is the case, the Rules work as they were intended, and the Court can focus 24 on the business of justice.

25 Strobel v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, No. 04CV1069 BEN(BLM),

, 26 at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2007). The Court considered the entirety of the Complaint 27 [Doc. No. 1] as well as all of the arguments in Plaintiff’s Response and Surreply [Doc. 28 1 || Nos. 23, 26] when it granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and is not persuaded that its 2 || order was incorrect. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 3 4 It is SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 14, 2023 € Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28