United States District Court, D. Colorado
LARRY J. PRICE, individually and as son and beneficiary of Tiena A. Price, deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN P. PRICE, individually and in his official capacity as Guardian, Conservator, and Trustee, ALLAN S. PRICE, COLUMBINE COMMONS HEALTH & REHAB CENTER, a Colorado corporation and skilled nursing facility, and STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' several
Motions to Dismiss:
1. Defendant Stephen Price's pro se Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for
Failure to State a Claim, filed February 13, 2018 (Doc. #
10), to which Plaintiff Larry Price untimely responded on
March 8, 2018[1] (Doc. # 17);
2. Defendant Columbine Commons Health & Rehab
Center's (“Defendant Columbine”) Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), filed March 6, 2018 (Doc. # 12), to
which Plaintiff untimely responded on March 30, 2018 (Doc. #
23). Defendant Columbine replied in support of its Rule 12(b)
Motion to Dismiss on April 13, 2018 (Doc. # 28);
3. Defendant Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment's (“Defendant CDPHE”) Motion to
Dismiss, filed March 6, 2018 (Doc. # 13), to which Plaintiff
untimely responded on March 30, 2018 (Doc. # 24). Defendant
CDPHE replied in support of its Motion to Dismiss on April
10, 2018 (Doc. # 27);
4. Defendant Allan Price's pro se Motion to
Dismiss for Improper Service Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4, filed March 23, 2018 (Doc. # 22), to which
Plaintiff responded on April 13, 2018 (Doc. # 29). Defendant
Allan Price replied in support of his Motion to Dismiss on
April 24, 2018 (Doc. # 35);
5. Defendant Allan Price's pro se Motion to
Dismiss for Untimely Alleged Service of Summons (Doc. # 36);
and
6. Defendant Columbine's third Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to File a Certificate of Review, filed August 15,
2018 (Doc. # 48).
For the
reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that it lacks
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and therefore
dismisses the entire matter, as Defendant Columbine urges
(Doc. # 12). The Court grants Defendant Columbine's
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
(id.) and denies as moot the remaining
Defendants' various Motions to Dismiss in light of the
Court's conclusion.
I.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As the
Court explained in its previous Order (Doc. # 25), Plaintiff
Larry Price is the son of Tiena Price, now deceased, and has
four brothers and sisters: Stephen, Allan, Linda, and Diana
(now deceased). (Doc. # 1 at 5.) Plaintiff's Complaint
arises out of the appointment of his mother's guardian,
the placement of his mother in a nursing home facility, and
his mother's death. See generally (id.)
Plaintiff, acting pro se, asserts claims against his
brother, Defendant Stephen Price; his other brother,
Defendant Allan Price; the nursing home at which his mother
was admitted, Columbine Commons in Windsor, Colorado; and the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
(Id. at 5-7.) Plaintiff's Complaint, filed
January 4, 2018, alleges:
1) General negligence - wrongful death, against Defendants
Stephen Price and Columbine;
2) Gross negligence - intentional misconduct, against
Defendants Stephen Price and Columbine;
3) Denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against
all Defendants;
4) Violation of the Nursing Home Reform Act Amendments, 42
U.S.C. § 1396r, against Defendant Columbine;
5) Wrongful death - felonious killing, against Defendants
Stephen Price, Allan Price, and Columbine; and
6) Wrongful death, against all Defendants.
(Id. at 21-39.)
Plaintiff
asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over “all
causes of action and parties in this case” pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1367. (Id. at
4.) As to Section 1331, regarding federal question
jurisdiction, Plaintiff asserts that “there are federal
questions to be answered.” (Id.) As to Section
1332, regarding diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff states that
his case concerns “damages in excess of $75, 000”
and involves “parties from both Colorado and
Texas.” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff invokes
...