Kiril Zahariev V Gower Family Dentistry Llc And Dr Jessica Gower

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff Kiril Zahariev filed multiple federal claims against Gower Family Dentistry and Dr. Jessica Gower, including violations of the FTC Act, No Surprises Act, and the Affordable Care Act (Title VI) based on alleged national origin discrimination. The court dismissed all federal claims for lack of private right of action and insufficient factual allegations of intentional discrimination or state action. The court also dismissed §1983 claims against private defendants and declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, which were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff, a Bulgarian citizen, alleged he was discriminated against as a resident of South Carolina, but the court found no plausible evidence of this or that he is domiciled elsewhere.

Transaction Type

Dental services dispute

Issues

  • Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering the parties' lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).
  • Whether the Plaintiff's claims under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) and No Surprises Act are viable due to the absence of a private right of action under these statutes.
  • Whether the Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against private dental providers qualify as state action under the Fourth Circuit's 'handful of contexts' standard for § 1983 applicability.
  • Whether the Plaintiff's Title VI discrimination claim under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for national origin and linguistic abilities is supported by plausible allegations of intentional discrimination.
  • Whether the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA) claim provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction by incorporating the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), given that the FTC Act lacks a private right of action and the SCUTPA claim does not raise a 'substantial' federal issue.

Holdings

  • The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The parties are not diverse under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) because the plaintiff is domiciled in South Carolina. The plaintiff's attempt to invoke § 1653 to amend jurisdictional allegations was rejected as the substantive fact of non-diversity was clear.
  • The court dismissed the plaintiff's Affordable Care Act (ACA) claim under Title VI for failure to allege plausible intentional discrimination based on national origin. The plaintiff's complaint lacked specific facts demonstrating Defendants knew he was Bulgarian or that they intentionally discriminated against him. The objection citing a new retaliation claim was overruled as unraised and lacking a protected activity.
  • The court dismissed the plaintiff's § 1983 claims because the Defendants are private actors, and the plaintiff did not plausibly allege they acted under color of state law. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined the cooperation with a state investigation does not constitute state action, as there was no evidence of government delegation, sovereign power, or compliance with state procedures.
  • The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims under the FTC Act and No Surprises Act because these statutes do not provide a private right of action. The plaintiff's argument that the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA) claim implicates federal law was rejected, as the presence of a federal issue in a state claim does not confer federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable test. The court found no 'substantial' federal issue in the SCUTPA claim.

Remedies

The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims, and dismisses the remaining state law claims without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Legal Principles

  • The court applied the principle that the FTC Act and No Surprises Act do not provide a private right of action, relying on precedents like Fisher v. Walgreens and Guardian Flight. This means only administrative enforcement is permitted under these statutes.
  • Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) was rejected because Plaintiff is domiciled in South Carolina, the same state as Defendants. The court clarified domicile requires 'fixed and permanent' residence, which Plaintiff admitted.
  • § 1983 claims were dismissed because Defendants are private actors, not state actors. The court cited DeBauche v. Trani and Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge, noting cooperation with state investigations does not create state action.
  • Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was rejected for SCUTPA claims. The court applied the four-prong Grable test, emphasizing that a federal issue must be 'necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court' to establish jurisdiction.
  • The court held that Title VI claims require pleading intentional discrimination with specific facts, not just conclusory allegations. Plaintiff's failure to show Defendants knew his national origin or acted discriminatorily led to dismissal.

Precedent Name

  • Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge Volunteer Fire Co.
  • Lucas v. VHC Health
  • Fisher v. Walgreens
  • Burrell v. Bayer Corp.
  • Guardian Flight, L.L.C. v. Health Care Serv. Corp.
  • DeBauche v. Trani
  • Perkins v. Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore Sch. of Nursing
  • Gunn v. Minton
  • Banks v. Gore
  • Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Management
  • Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C.

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

  • The court dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract claim as part of the state law claims, finding no sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The complaint did not plausibly allege contractual breaches by the defendants.
  • The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim of breach of contract with fraudulent intent, noting the complaint contained no plausible, non-conclusory allegations of fraudulent intent or specific contractual terms that were violated.

Cited Statute

  • South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA)
  • Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45)
  • No Surprises Act (26 U.S. Code § 9816)
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000d)
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)
  • 42 U.S.C. § 18116 (Affordable Care Act Section 1557)
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794)
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871)

Judge Name

Richard Mark Gergel

Passage Text

  • Plaintiff's complaint, however, contains no plausible, non-conclusory allegations of intentional discrimination based on his national origin. (Dkt. No. 38 at 10) (noting amended complaint contains one conclusory allegation that Defendants billed him differently, delayed his dental work, refused to replace his prosthetics, and terminated him as a patient because he is Bulgarian, but noting complaint is devoid of 'facts or circumstances from which the Court could infer that Defendant even knew Plaintiff was Bulgarian, let alone discriminated against him'); (Id. at 10 & n.2) (further reasons for why Plaintiff's allegations are not plausible).
  • Plaintiff's argument that his SCUTPA claim falls into the 'slim category' of cases described above fails for at least one glaring reason. Plaintiff's SCUTPA claim does not raise a 'substantial' federal issue.
  • After a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that Plaintiff's federal claims must be dismissed.

Damages / Relief Type

  • Plaintiff seeks consequential damages.
  • Plaintiff seeks actual and compensatory damages.
  • Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.