CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
This is a federal question action alleging a claim for violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. It also includes supplemental state law claims for violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, medical malpractice, battery, and negligence. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the action was subsequently referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7, 11.)
Pending before the court is defendants Christopher D. Page, M.D. ("Dr. Page") and North Valley Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery's ("North Valley") motion to dismiss plaintiff Guillermina Partida's complaint, presently scheduled for hearing on March 14, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 11.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion (dkt. no. 9), and defendants filed a reply brief. (Dkt. No. 10.) Having reviewed the parties' briefing, the court concludes that oral argument would not be of material assistance in resolving the pending motion. Accordingly, the March 14, 2012 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss will be vacated.
After reviewing the papers in support of and in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, the court's record in this matter, and the applicable law, the court now issues the following order.
The background facts are taken from plaintiff's complaint filed on November 30, 2011. (
Furthermore, plaintiff alleges that she was born in Mexico and is a non-native, low proficiency speaker of the English language. (Compl. ¶ 12.) She allegedly has a limited ability to comprehend spoken and written English, particularly the complex English involved in sensitive medical communications. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to provide a translator to ensure effective communication regarding her medical treatment and that she "did not understand the reasons for any of Defendants' medical decisions or the justifications for, or the risks or benefits of, the procedures she underwent, or the procedures Defendants withheld" during treatment. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.) Plaintiff contends that if she had been provided with a trained medical translator, she "could have participated in a manner similar to native English speakers; that is, she could have participated more meaningfully in, and made decisions about, her medical care prior to her foot becoming irreconcilably infected." (Compl. ¶ 16.) She claims that the failure to provide a translator caused her to "misapprehend the full risks or benefits of the procedures to which Defendants subjected her, and those from which they refrained from subjecting her to, resulting in her permanent injury." (Compl. ¶ 17.) As such, defendants failed to obtain informed consent from plaintiff with respect to her treatment. (Compl. ¶ 34.)
Additionally, plaintiff alleges, based on information and belief, that Dr. Page has previously been sued for medical malpractice, but that he failed to seek additional training, supervision, or assistance with his practice of podiatric medicine. (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 40.) Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that North Valley was aware of previous incidents of malpractice by Dr. Page, but failed to provide him with additional training or closely supervise his work. (Compl. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff asserts that these failures were a direct and proximate cause of her injuries. (Compl. ¶ 41.)
Based on these allegations, as discussed above, plaintiff asserts five causes of action for: (1) violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; (2) violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) medical malpractice; (4) battery; and (5) negligence. The instant motion to dismiss followed.
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action."
Plaintiff alleges that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to provide a translator to ensure effective communication during plaintiff's medical treatment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Even assuming that receipt of Medicare payments by a doctor as compensation for services rendered qualifies as the receipt of federal financial assistance for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,
Instead, plaintiff's complaint, if liberally construed, alleges that defendants' practice of only providing medical services in English without the availability of translators has a disparate impact on limited English proficiency ("LEP") patients such as plaintiff, who cannot effectively communicate with their doctors in English regarding their treatment options. However, any purported disparate impact discrimination claim is not cognizable, because Title VI does not provide a private right of action for disparate impact discrimination — only for intentional discrimination.
Accordingly, plaintiff's claim under Title VI is not cognizable and should be dismissed. Furthermore, because it does not appear plausible that the claim could be cured through further amendment, leave to amend would be futile and dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.
As there are no federal claims remaining, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The March 14, 2012 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss is vacated;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 5) is granted;
3. Plaintiff's first cause of action for violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is dismissed with prejudice;
4. Plaintiff's remaining state law causes of action are dismissed without prejudice;
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.