Nahal v. Allina Health System

Background

The court had ordered Armon Nahal to withdraw several subpoenas issued for a September 5, 2018 hearing on several defendants’ motion to dismiss his second amended complaint. The court also ordered him to make reasonable efforts to notify the subpoenaed third parties that they were not required to appear. It explained that the hearing was an oral-argument hearing, not an evidentiary hearing, and that the court would consider only whether the complaint’s allegations were legally sufficient.

Nahal then asked the court to allow the subpoenaed witnesses and their evidence to be present at the hearing. He said their testimony would be crucial to his case and concerned alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, civil-rights and labor laws, and alleged collusion between pharmacy management and a pharmacy union. He also characterized denial of the subpoenas as obstruction of justice.

Requests and ruling

The court treated Nahal’s message as a request to reconsider its earlier order. Reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence. The court found that Nahal identified no such basis and denied the request, stating that the subpoenas remained improper for the September 5 hearing.

The court also considered the message as a possible request to convert the motion-to-dismiss hearing into an evidentiary hearing about the merits of Nahal’s case. It denied that request as well. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court first had to decide whether the factual allegations in the complaint, assumed to be true for that purpose, failed to state a legally valid claim. The court said the hearing would therefore be limited to oral argument about the sufficiency of the allegations and defendants’ motion.

Judge Katherine Menendez concluded by denying Nahal’s letter request in full.