Casa Colina Hospital v. DON WRIGHT, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Health

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND
CENTERS FOR HEALTHCARE, DBA
Casa Colina Hospital for Rehabilitative
Medicine,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DON WRIGHT, Acting Secretary of the
United States Department of Health and
Human Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56725
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-03990-DSF-AS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 8, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE,** District
Judge.
FILED
OCT 10 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
1. Mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 “exists when [1] a
plaintiff has a clear right to relief, [2] a defendant has a clear duty to act and [3] no
other adequate remedy is available.” Piledrivers’ Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith,
695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1982). “The extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies
within the discretion of the trial court, even if the three elements are satisfied.” Or.
Nat. Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Indep.
Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 505 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court
appropriately concluded that granting relief would merely allow Casa Colina “to
jump the queue of other identically situated parties” and would therefore achieve
an arbitrary result and “encourage a barrage of mandamus actions by others.” Casa
Colina has failed to show abuse of discretion.
2. “Judicial review of claims arising under the Medicare Act is available
only after the Secretary renders a ‘final decision.’” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S.
602, 605 (1984). Although this dispute “hinges on the alleged right to timely
appeals hearings on Medicare payments,” Casa Colina did not press its claims
“through all designated levels of administrative review,” Ringer, 466 U.S. at 606;
see also 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.1130, 405.1132. Nor is judicial waiver of exhaustion
requirements appropriate. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
2003). Casa Colina lacks an irreparable injury because a future award of damages
plus interest will make it whole. See Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television &
Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991); 42 U.S.C. §
1395ddd(f)(2)(B). The district court didn’t err by dismissing Casa Colina’s
Medicare Act, Administrative Procedure Act and Due Process claims.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --