United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(Rec. Doc. 10) filed by Defendant Jefferson Parish Hospital
Service District No. 2. Also before the Court is another
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rec. Doc. 14)
filed by Defendant Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District
No. 2. Plaintiff opposes both Motions. (Rec. Doc. 17). The
Motions, set for submission on May 31, 2017 and July 12,
2017, respectively, are before the Court on the briefs
without oral argument.
matter arises out of the alleged wrongful termination of
Plaintiff Bahram Zamanian by Defendant following an incident
that took place on October 6, 2013. Plaintiff brought this
lawsuit against Defendant seeking damages for alleged denial
of his right to due process in violation of 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1983 and breach of contract, and seeking a permanent
injunction ordering Defendant to: rescind its summary
suspension of Plaintiff s hospital privileges, restore
Plaintiffs hospital admitting privileges with all benefits
due him, refrain from further harassing, retaliatory and
unlawful conduct towards Plaintiff, and rescind and withdraw
Report No. 5500 000109022215 filed by Defendant with the
National Practitioners Data Bank. Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant violated 1)42 U.S.C.A. §1983 and the Louisiana
Constitution by denying Plaintiffs right to due process, and
2) Louisiana state law for improper termination of Plaintiff
s admitting privileges and breach of contract.
time Defendant filed its first Motion to Dismiss, two
Plaintiffs were in this matter Dr. Bahram Zamanian and Bahram
Zamanian, M.D., APMC. However, Plaintiffs subsequently
amended their Complaint and filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, dismissing all claims of Plaintiff Bahram
Zamanian, M.D., APMC against Defendant but maintaining
Plaintiff Bahram Zamanian's claims. Thus, the Court will
only address Plaintiff Bahram Zamanian's claims against
argues that Plaintiffs claims against it should be dismissed
because 1) Plaintiffs contentions in his Complaint are
conclusory and do not meet the standard under Twombly/Iqubal,
2) Plaintiffs Complaint fails to establish a property
interest to assert a due process and Louisiana Constitution
claim, 3) even if Plaintiff can establish a property
interest, Defendant cannot be liable for the action of its
employees that were allegedly in violation of Plaintiffs due
process rights, 4) Plaintiffs complaint fails to set forth
allegations that plausibly show that Defendant's by-laws
violate due process requirements or were violated by a
policymaker, 5) Plaintiffs complaint fails to set forth
allegations that plausibly show that Defendant or an employee
denied Plaintiffs due process rights, and 6) Defendant is
entitled to immunity under the Healthcare Quality Improvement
context of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Lormandv.
U.S. Umvired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009)
(citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights,
Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Lovickv. Ritemoney, Ltd.,
378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the foregoing
tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroftv.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550, U.S. 544, 555
central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
Complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe
v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). To
avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to
"state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face." Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). "A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. The Court does not accept as true
"conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences,
or legal conclusions." Id. (quoting Plotkin
v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)).
Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. (quoting Ashroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009)).
Court is not persuaded by Defendant that Plaintiffs Complaint
fails to meet the standard under Twombly/Iqbal. Under the
Twombly/Iqbal standard, Plaintiff need only plead sufficient
facts to state a claim that is facially plausible.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). He
may do so by submitting factual content from which the Court
may reasonably infer that Defendant is liable for the alleged
misconduct. Id. In his Complaint, Plaintiff gives
great factual detail on the incident that took place on
October 6, 2013, as well as the peer review process which
Plaintiff alleges violated his due process rights. Plaintiffs
Complaint alleges facts surrounding the hearing on his
summary suspension conducted by the Medical Executive
Committee, why he was not present at the meeting, and why the
Committee's grounds did not meet the standards of
Defendant's by-laws. (Rec. Doc. 1). Additionally,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which added "[n]ew
paragraphs to the existing Complaint" and gave detail as
to the evidence presented in the hearing and the reasoning of
the medical review panels. (Rec. Doc. 13). Given the factual
content in Plaintiffs Complaint and Amended Complaint
concerning the incident on October 6, 2013 and subsequent
review procedures, the Court finds that Plaintiffs pleadings
meet the standard under Twombly/Iqbal.
Violation of Due Process Rights
asserts that Plaintiffs claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and
the Louisiana Constitution should be dismissed because
Plaintiff fails to sufficiently establish a property interest
protected by his right to due process. Even if a
constitutionally protected property interest exists,
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs constitutional claims fail,
advancing a number of alternative arguments. Defendant claims
that Plaintiff cannot show Defendant is liable for the acts
of its employees, Defendant's by-laws are in ...