Steinmeyer v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings

676 F.Supp.3d 851

Randall Henri STEINMEYER, Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,a Delaware corporation; George Maha, an individual;Gary Bubis, as Judge of Superior Court of San Diego; Rob Bonta,as Attorney General of California, Defendants.

Case No.: 22-cv-01213-DMS-DDL

United States District Court, S.D. California

Signed June 8, 2023

Randall Henri Steinmeyer, San Diego, CA, Pro Se.

Jesse Steinbach, Todd B. Benoff, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, George Maha.

Carmela E. Duke, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Honorable Gary Bubis.

Quintin Earle Lucas, Office of Attorney General Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Rob Bonta.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge

Before the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 36.) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings ("Labcorp"), George Maha ("Maha"), Attorney General Rob Bonta ("Bonta"), and San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Bubis ("Bubis") are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

I. BACKGROUND

In March 2017, Defendant Labcorp administered a "motherless 2 person test[ ]" pursuant to a court order in a state court dependency proceeding. (First Amended Compl. ("FAC") ¶¶ 53, 141, ECF No. 4.) The test determined that Plaintiff was the biological father of the minor child and the court so decreed. (FAC ¶ 71.) Accordingly, the state court issued several Income Withholding Orders against Plaintiff for child support between 2018 and 2022. (See Def. Bubis's Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D, ECF No. 8-2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Labcorp and Maha have concealed a portion of the paternity test or generated false test results. (FAC ¶¶ 196, 203, 205-08.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants Labcorp and Maha lied to Plaintiff about the validity of the paternity test they administered, (FAC ¶ 74), and Plaintiff argues that Defendant Maha "caused or otherwise induced a judge . . . to hide the material DNA and therefore the paternity evidence." (FAC ¶ 185.) In this Action, Plaintiff seeks primarily money damages against Defendants Labcorp and Maha, and injunctive relief against Defendants Bonta and Bubis in the form of an order commanding them to stop withholding Plaintiff's income for child support.

The procedural history of this case is convoluted. Plaintiff filed this action on August 18, 2022, (ECF No. 1), and filed an amended complaint on November 8, 2022. (See generally FAC.) Against Defendants Labcorp and Maha, Plaintiff brought various state tort law claims, (id. ¶¶ 198-211, 264-69), claims alleging violations of the California Business and Professional Code, (id. ¶¶ 212-25), and claims alleging violations of the California Family Code, (id. ¶¶ 226-53). Against Defendant Labcorp only, Plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, (id. ¶¶ 257-60), negligent manufacture, (id. ¶¶ 261-63), strict products liability, (id. ¶¶ 270-73), and a Sherman Act claim, (id. ¶¶ 274-78). Lastly, Plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bonta and Bubis for constitutional violations. (Id. ¶¶ 279-86.) Plaintiff alleges that the paternity test results published in court and related court orders injured him primarily in the following two ways: First, after the genetic test yielded positive results of Plaintiff's paternity, the state court decreed Plaintiff to be the father of the minor child and accordingly ordered a portion of his income be withheld for child support. (See id. ¶ 184.) And second, Plaintiff was required to reimburse the state for the cost of the test because it yielded positive evidence of Plaintiff's paternity. (See id. ¶ 190.) Nowhere in the FAC does Plaintiff plainly allege that he is not the father of minor child.

Defendants Labcorp, Maha, and Bubis timely filed motions to dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9.) On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff moved for entry of default judgment against Defendant Bonta. (Pl.'s Req. for Entry of Default J., ECF No. 16.) On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for temporary restraining order (TRO) against Defendant Bonta seeking an order from this Court "to enjoin Defendant Bonta from taking Plaintiff's property using fictitious, non-statutory test results, immediately." (Pl.'s Ex Parte Appl. for TRO at 2, ECF No. 28.) The Court denied the application for lack of jurisdiction over the claim. (ECF No. 27.) Then, on March 1, 2023, in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Bonta, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his claim against Defendant Bonta should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 34.)

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 35.) And on March 8, 2023, Defendant Bonta filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim. (ECF No. 36.)

Then on March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second ex parte application for a TRO against Defendants Labcorp and Maha, alleging that they had concealed some portions of the results of the paternity test they administered in 2017, and seeking an order to "forc[e]" them to disclose the entirety of the results. (Pl.'s Ex Parte Appl. for TRO, ECF No. 37; Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Ex Parte Appl. for TRO at 16 n.8, ECF No. 37-1.) The Court denied the application due to Plaintiff's failure to show irreparable harm. (ECF No. 39.)

On April 17, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 54.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that a complaint "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of a claim." Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). To survive a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. If Plaintiff "ha[s] not nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," the complaint "must be dismissed." Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint on a motion to dismiss, a court must "accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). But courts are not "required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)). A court may also consider "matters of judicial notice" in ruling on a motion to dismiss. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When ruling on such a motion, a court may consider extrinsic evidence beyond the face of the complaint. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). A challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction "may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006).

When a court grants a motion to dismiss a complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be "freely given" where there is no (1) "undue delay," (2) "bad faith or dilatory motive," (3) "undue prejudice to the opposing party" if amendment were allowed, or (4) "futility" in allowing amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Dismissal without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that "the complaint could not be saved by any amendment." Intri-Plex Techs. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). "Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint . . . constitutes an exercise in futility . . . ." Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

III. DISCUSSION

In this Action, Plaintiff brings twenty claims against four defendants. Plaintiff brings the following claims against both Defendants Labcorp and Maha: negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence per se, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of the California False Advertising Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, various violations of the California Family Code, battery, conversion, and false imprisonment. Plaintiff brings the following claims against Defendant Labcorp only: breach of contract, negligent manufacture, strict product liability, and a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. Finally, Plaintiff brings claims for constitutional violations under 42...