Banga v. Lustig

Background

Kamlesh Banga, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Lawrence R. Lustig, M.D., and Doe defendants 1–5. She alleged that Lustig and others withheld computerized data connected to auditory brainstem response tests and that the withholding harmed her earlier personal-injury litigation, deprived her of the benefit of services she paid for, and caused emotional distress.

Banga asserted seven claims or categories of claims: violations of California Health and Safety Code § 123110 and the federal medical-privacy regulation at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524; a common-count claim; violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200; unjust enrichment; constructive fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; and emotional distress. Lustig moved to dismiss the revised amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing all claims because they either lacked a private right to sue, were barred by claim preclusion—often called res judicata, which can prevent a party from relitigating claims resolved in an earlier case—or were untimely. Banga objected and also sought discovery, including production of medical records for private judicial review and permission to depose Lustig.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Banga’s request for discovery because the recommended dismissal rested on claim-preclusion and statute-of-limitations issues that the requested records and testimony could not change. It also did not consider Banga’s amended objections because they were filed after the 14-day deadline, although it reviewed them for completeness and found that they would not alter the result.

The court agreed that claims based on Banga’s records requests from 2014 or earlier were untimely. It also rejected her argument that a continuing-wrong theory kept those claims timely. The court noted that Banga had not supplied authority applying that tort-law doctrine to her statutory claim and that her claim sought only injunctive relief, meaning an order requiring conduct rather than damages.

The court sustained one objection. Banga’s complaint alleged that she sent a medical authorization form on March 12, 2020, requesting copies of specified auditory-test records. The court read her reference to “Defendants” as including Lustig and held that this allegation plausibly made her claim under California Health and Safety Code § 123110 timely. The court otherwise adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, including the conclusions that other claims were barred by claim preclusion, untimely, or lacked a private cause of action. Banga stated that she was dropping her claim under the federal medical-privacy law, and the court noted that the law does not provide a private cause of action.

Disposition

The court concluded that diversity jurisdiction had initially existed because the pleadings alleged that Banga and Lustig were citizens of different states and that the damages claims exceeded $75,000. Once all damages claims were dismissed, however, the remaining § 123110 claim allowed only injunctive relief and did not independently support diversity jurisdiction.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction were gone. It cited the early stage of the case, the absence of discovery, and the court’s lack of experience applying the California statute. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the motion to dismiss all of Banga’s other claims, with prejudice. He dismissed the surviving § 123110 claim, based on the March 12, 2020 records request, without prejudice to Banga’s right to pursue it elsewhere, and directed the clerk to close the case.