Dalavai v. University of California San Diego Health

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDAL JEROME DALAVAI, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01471-CAB-DDL Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. 13 RECONSIDERATION DONNA LOZA, et al., 14 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 99 and 102] 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff has filed two motions for reconsideration relating to the Court’s order 19 denying Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. [Doc. Nos. 99 and 102.] The Court 20 considers the amended motion. 21 “The moving party under Rule 60(b) is entitled to relief from judgment for the 22 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 23 discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; 24 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or 25 (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Am. Ironworks 26 & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). 27 28 1 Plaintiff, moving under prongs one and six, claims that the Court’s order rests on a 2 ||mistaken factual premise: that Plaintiff may still file a complaint under Cal. Health & 3 Safety Code § 1279.2. [Doc. No. 102 at 2.] Plaintiff misreads the Court’s order. In its 4 analysis of the legal justification for a default judgment, the Court explained that the past 5 || denial of Plaintiff's state agency complaint was not grounds for a showing of prejudice (an 6 || Fitel factor). [Doc. No. 97 at 6.] The crux of the Court’s analysis rested on the fact that 7 || Plaintiff cannot identify any property or liberty interest at issue in this case to sustain a due 8 || process claim. See Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 9 (9th Cir. 1998). The plain text of Section 1279.2 does not by itself create such a right. 10 || Moreover, the Court has been provided no authority, nor is it aware of any, that extends a 11 |/statute governing onsite hospital investigations to create a constitutional interest subject to 12 minimal requirements of procedural due process. 13 Relief pursuant to a Rule 60(b) motion is an extraordinary remedy “to be used 14 || sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., 15 || Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F, 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has 16 |/not met this standard. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. 17 18 It is SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: June 3, 2025 & Z 21 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28