Case Explained: DALAVAI V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-04 Docket: 3:22-cv-01471-CAB-DDL The ninth circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Randal Jerome Dalavai’s civil rights claims against various defendants, including the Regents of the University of California and Universal Health Services. The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims against Universal Health Services for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), reasoning that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish state action by a private hospital making medical admission decisions, even when complying with Medicare and Medi-Cal regulations. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against Donna Loza and Deo Besana for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient Article III standing, finding the plaintiff could not demonstrate that his injury was traceable to those defendants or that injunctive relief would redress it. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of contingent claims against the Regents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(b) and state-law fraud claims against individual doctors for failure to allege requisite intent or knowledge. The court further upheld the denial of leave to amend as futile, citing preclusion regarding EMTALA claims and the inability to cure deficiencies in standing and state action allegations. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of default judgment on due process grounds, concluding that the plaintiff failed to identify a legitimate claim of entitlement to details of a Department of Public Health investigation. The practical consequence is that the district court’s final judgment dismissing all claims is upheld, and no further litigation on these merits is permitted. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.