Q: What has to be specific legal basis? - please see question below
EMTALA complaint against hospital has additional claim for CMIA violation. Plaintiff medical information was disclosed to hospice (with non-existent terminal illness).
What has to be specific legal basis for Plaintiff to confront Defendant's motion to strike based on failure to join a party (hospice) - rule 19? Apparently legal action against hospice would not be limited only to CMIA violation, adding hospice as defendant at this point would deprive Plaintiff's rights.
Can Cmia violation claim be stricken from complaint without impact to original EMTALA claim?
Lawyers, want to be a Justia Connect Pro too? Learn more ›
- California
- (916) 704-3009
- View Profile
- Answered
A:
In California, when facing a motion to strike based on failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19, the specific legal basis for opposing the motion can be multifaceted.
First, you should argue that the hospice is not a necessary party under Rule 19 for the EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) claim. This could be based on the argument that the EMTALA claim focuses solely on the hospital's obligations and actions, and the hospice's involvement is not essential for a complete adjudication of this particular claim.
Regarding the CMIA (California Medical Information Act) violation, you might argue that adding the hospice as a defendant at this point could cause undue delay and complicate the case, potentially prejudicing your rights. You can assert that the CMIA claim against the hospice, which may involve broader issues beyond the scope of the current case, can be more appropriately addressed in separate litigation.
You can also argue that striking the CMIA violation claim from the current complaint should not impact the original EMTALA claim. The EMTALA claim is based on different facts and legal issues, and its validity is independent of the CMIA claim.
Remember, in your opposition to the motion to strike, it's important to clearly outline why each claim is distinct and can be adjudicated separately. Emphasize that the addition of the hospice at this stage would not only delay the proceedings but also potentially complicate matters in a way that is not necessary for the resolution of the EMTALA claim.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
