Juan Rios Quinones v. Unitedhealth Group Incorporated

Panel
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN RIOS QUINONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED;
UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.;
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
COMPANY; DOES, John, 1-99; DOES,
Jane, 1-999; DOE, Entities, 1-20; DOE,
Governmental Units, 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16518
D.C. No.
1:14-cv-00497-LEK-RLP
MEMORANDUM and
ORDER*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 24, 2019**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: GRABER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Juan Quinones appeals from the summary judgment
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 30 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Panel 2
entered in favor of Defendants-Appellees UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UHC). On
appeal, Quinones argues that UHC violated federal Medicaid laws and regulations
and committed various state-law torts in handling his requests for a new personal
mobility device.
Supplemental briefing was requested from the parties to determine whether
we still retained subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). After reviewing the parties’ briefs, we hold that we do.
The benefits to “judicial economy, convenience, [and] fairness” to the parties
strongly support the retention of supplemental jurisdiction here. Satey v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Carnegie-
Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). We GRANT Quinones’s
September 25, 2019 motion (Dkt. No. 58) to take judicial notice. FED. R. EVID.
201.
“We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for
summary judgment.” Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d
957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). Considering the facts that are undisputed by the
parties—and even considering the waived arguments first raised by Quinones on
appeal—we agree with the district court that UHC’s Medicaid program did not
deny Quinones coverage, respond to requests in an untimely manner, or otherwise
violate any applicable statutes, regulations, or duties of care. As a result, in its

-- 2 of 3 --

Panel 3
April 18, 2017 amended order, the district court correctly granted UHC’s summary
judgment motions and denied Quinones’s motion for summary judgment as moot.
The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Quinones’s subsequent
motion for reconsideration. See Kerr v. Jewell, 836 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir.
2016). Adams v. Hawaii Medical Service Ass'n, No. SCWC-15-0000396, 2019
WL 4745128 (Haw. Sept. 30, 2019), cited by Quinones in his October 7, 2019
letter, is factually distinguishable from this case, where the undisputed facts reflect
that UHC did not deny Quinones coverage or otherwise mishandle his claims.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --