Tidwell v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Background

Edward C. Tidwell, representing himself, sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Kaiser entities, Trident Society, Inc. (Trident), Livanta LLC, and two doctors. He alleged that his daughter died after receiving care at Kaiser Permanente and that Kaiser released her remains to Trident without his authorization. He further alleged that Trident cremated the remains and obtained money and personal information through wrongful conduct.

The claims against Trident included personal injury, wrongful death, fraud and deceit, health-care fraud, conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, fraudulent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. This order addressed only Trident’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that other defendants’ motions would be addressed separately.

Judicial notice

Tidwell asked the court to recognize several exhibits and documents as judicially noticeable. The court granted the request as to Trident’s public corporate records in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. It denied judicial notice of Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 5 because they were private documents subject to reasonable dispute; denied Exhibit 2 as moot; denied Exhibit 9 because its meaning and Tidwell’s conclusions about it were subject to reasonable dispute; and denied Exhibits 10 and 11 and documents from other cases because Tidwell did not explain their relevance. The court also denied judicial notice of correspondence filed in another case because the correspondence was private and subject to reasonable dispute.

Trident’s motion

Trident moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court rejected Trident’s jurisdictional argument. Tidwell’s complaint included claims under the federal Freedom of Information Act against other defendants, giving the court federal-question jurisdiction. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Trident because they formed part of the same case or controversy.

The court nevertheless found that the complaint failed under Rule 12(b)(6). It concluded that Tidwell did not plead enough facts to allow a reasonable inference that Trident had engaged in actionable conduct. For example, he did not plead facts showing that Trident was required to obtain his authorization before taking possession of the remains. His allegations that Trident stole personal information and obtained ill-gotten gains were also conclusory and did not describe what Trident allegedly did.

Because several claims involved fraud, the court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity, including the time, place, and manner of the alleged fraudulent acts and each defendant’s role. The court found that Tidwell did not identify the allegedly false statements, when or where they were made, or how Trident participated. The court therefore did not analyze the individual elements of each of the eight claims.

Disposition

The court granted Trident’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against Trident because Tidwell failed to plead facts stating a claim. The order’s heading describes the dismissal as without prejudice, and the court granted leave to amend because it could not say with certainty that amendment would be futile. Tidwell’s amended complaint was due March 2, 2026. The court warned that another failure to plead adequately could result in dismissal without leave to amend.