Tahtiana Jade Brown v. LucidWorks, et al.

Summary

The document is an order and findings and recommendations in a pro se employment and medical-records dispute. The magistrate judge recommends quashing service on all defendants, granting motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, denying leave to proceed on the proposed amended complaint, and allowing a further amendment limited to employment discrimination claims against the plaintiff’s employer and supervisor. The recommendations conclude that the plaintiff’s HIPAA, CMIA, privacy, negligence, emotional-distress, due-process, extortion, and RICO claims cannot be cured by amendment.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to establish proper service on any defendant. The defective service did not establish personal jurisdiction, and service should be quashed rather than treated as valid based on actual notice.
2. The complaint and proposed amended complaint failed to state viable claims for HIPAA or Rule 26 violations, CMIA violations, invasion of privacy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, procedural due process, extortion, or racketeering, and those defects appeared incurable; those claims should be dismissed without leave to amend.
3. The employment discrimination and retaliation allegations failed to state a claim as pleaded, but plaintiff should be granted leave to amend claims against Lucidworks and, potentially, a FEHA harassment claim against supervisor Natalia Pascuzzi.
4. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment should be denied because no defendant had been properly served and the Clerk had not entered default.
5. Leave to amend should be denied as futile for the proposed medical privacy, tort, due process, extortion, and racketeering claims, but granted for a further complaint limited to potentially viable employment discrimination claims against the employer and supervisor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether service of the summons and complaint was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over any defendant.
2. Whether the complaint and proposed amended complaint stated claims for HIPAA and Rule 26 violations, CMIA violations, invasion of privacy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, procedural due process, extortion, racketeering, retaliation, or employment discrimination.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to default judgment without an entry of default and without proof of proper service.
4. Whether plaintiff's motions for contempt and permission to file electronically should be granted.
5. Whether plaintiff should receive leave to amend her employment discrimination claims.

Disposition

other