Woodard v. Cedars Sinai Hospital

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-1837
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUSAN WOODARD, No. 24-1837 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00965-FWS-RAO Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CEDARS SINAI HOSPITAL; ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF COLORADO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fred W. Slaughter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Susan Woodard appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her

diversity action alleging medical malpractice. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal based on statute of limitations and

application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,

656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Woodard’s claims against Cedars Sinai

Hospital because Woodard failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible

claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)); SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc., 258 P.3d 737, 741 (Cal. 2011)

(no vicarious liability for tortious acts of independent contractors except in

specified circumstances); Johnson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 52, 58 (Ct.

App. 2006) (elements of a medical malpractice claim under California law).

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Woodard’s claims

against Envision Healthcare Corporation because Woodard failed to raise those

claims within the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.5

(the statute of limitations for a California medical malpractice claim is “three years

after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers . . . the injury,

whichever occurs first”); Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202 (for Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474

to apply, “the plaintiff must be ‘genuinely ignorant’ of the defendant’s identity at

2 24-1837 the time the original complaint is filed”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)

(requiring that a newly named defendant, within the Rule 4(m) period, (1) have

“received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the

merits” and (2) have had constructive notice that the action would have been

brought against it, “but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity”).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1837