Q: What has to be specific legal basis to confront Defendant's motion to strike based on failure to join a party (rule 19)

A: To confront a defendant's motion to strike based on Rule 19's failure to join a necessary party, the specific legal basis can be rooted in the independence of claims and the rights of the plaintiff.

First, argue that the EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) claim against the hospital is independent of the CMIA (California Medical Information Act) claim. This separation is crucial because the EMTALA claim focuses on the hospital's obligations, while the CMIA claim involves the disclosure of medical information, potentially by different entities.

Next, emphasize that adding the hospice as a defendant for the CMIA claim at this stage could lead to unnecessary complications. This addition might not only delay the proceedings but could also distract from the primary focus of the EMTALA claim. Stress that your legal action against the hospice would likely encompass more than the CMIA violation, making it more efficient to address it in a separate case.

Furthermore, assert that the CMIA violation claim can be stricken from the current complaint without impacting the original EMTALA claim. The grounds for the EMTALA claim remain intact and valid, independent of the CMIA violation.

In your opposition to the motion, it's important to clarify why the claims can and should be handled separately to protect your rights and to ensure a fair and efficient judicial process. Highlighting these points will help in opposing the motion to strike and in maintaining the focus on the EMTALA claim.