Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, 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

Decided: October 30, 2019

Before: GRABER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Tristan Andres, Esquire, Aaron Lester Loeser, Esquire, Attorney, Alan Van Etten, Esquire, Attorney, Deeley King Pang & Van Etten, Honolulu, HI, Rafael Goodwin del Castillo, Esquire, Attorney, Jouxson-Meyers & Del Castillo, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant Dianne Winter Brookins, Esquire, Attorney, Dentons US LLP, Honolulu, HI, John-Anderson Laird Meyer, Attorney, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees


Plaintiff-Appellant Juan Quinones appeals from the summary judgment 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, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (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 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, 450 P.3d. 780, 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.


Copied to clipboard