Tahtiana Jade Brown v. LucidWorks, et al.

Summary

The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff Tahtiana Brown’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to halt a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board proceeding. The recommendation concludes that the motion is procedurally defective under Eastern District of California Local Rule 231 and that plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also questions subject-matter jurisdiction because HIPAA provides no private cause of action and the complaint does not clearly establish another federal question.

Holdings

1. The motion was procedurally defective because plaintiff did not file the required briefing, affidavit concerning irreparable injury, affidavit concerning notice or justification for dispensing with notice, or proposed order. Failure to comply with the local rule independently justified denial of the requested temporary restraining order.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish the likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm, and therefore did not satisfy the requirements for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
3. Based on the information before the court, the workers’ compensation case appeared to be non-removable because 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) prohibits removal of a civil action arising under a state’s workers’ compensation laws.
4. HIPAA does not provide a private right of action, and plaintiff therefore could not establish federal-question jurisdiction solely by pleading a HIPAA violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be denied for failing to comply with the Eastern District of California’s procedural requirements for temporary restraining orders.
2. Whether plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits and likelihood of irreparable harm sufficient to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
3. Whether plaintiff’s workers’ compensation proceeding was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c).
4. Whether plaintiff’s complaint established a federal question or other basis for subject matter jurisdiction, including through its HIPAA claim.

Disposition

other