Nicholas Stephens v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California declined to adopt a report and recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute because Nicholas Stephens timely filed an amended complaint. The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismissed claims based on HIPAA, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 with prejudice, while dismissing the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and invasion-of-privacy claims without prejudice. The court granted leave to amend those remaining claims by December 15, 2025.

Holdings

1. The court declined to adopt the report and recommendation because plaintiff timely filed his amended complaint, even though docketing was delayed.
2. The amended complaint sufficiently alleged federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 at the pleading stage.
3. HIPAA does not provide a private right of action; plaintiff's HIPAA claim was dismissed with prejudice.
4. The amended complaint did not adequately allege severe or extreme emotional distress, and the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was dismissed without prejudice.
5. Plaintiff failed to state Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment claims against the private insurance company, and those claims were dismissed with prejudice.
6. The amended complaint did not adequately state a California invasion-of-privacy claim as pleaded, but allegations that defendant accessed full medical records, including images of plaintiff's naked body, after withdrawal of authorization could theoretically support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim; dismissal was therefore without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should adopt the magistrate judge's report and recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute when the plaintiff had timely filed an amended complaint that was docketed late.
2. Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether the amended complaint stated a claim under HIPAA.
4. Whether the amended complaint stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
5. Whether the amended complaint stated constitutional claims against a private insurance company.
6. Whether the amended complaint stated a California invasion-of-privacy claim based on alleged access to medical records after withdrawal of consent.

Disposition

dismissed