Valliaveetil v. North Mountain Healthcare LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mathews M Valliaveetil,
Plaintiff,
v.
North Mountain Healthcare LLC,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03928-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Mathews M. Valliaveetil filed this suit against his former employer,
defendant North Mountain Healthcare LLC (“North Mountain”). Valliaveetil’s complaint
contains very few factual allegations, but he purports to be pursuing claims for wrongful
termination, “willful manipulation of scheduled work hours based on hatred,” failure to
provide him continued health insurance coverage, and unpaid wages for
“unprovided/cancelled work hours.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7.) North Mountain seeks dismissal of all
claims except the one involving health insurance coverage.
BACKGROUND
The complaint Valliaveetil filed in state court does not contain any factual
allegations, but he attached to that complaint a “Counseling/Disciplinary Notice” and a
“Rebuttal.” (Doc. 1-1 at 11-12.) Valliaveetil provided some additional factual background
in his response to the motion to dismiss.1 (Doc. 12 at 2.) Only the allegations in the
1 Valliaveetil also filed a sur-reply. (Doc. 16.) Doing so without first obtaining leave of the
court was improper, and leave would not have been granted here because the sur-reply
contains no new information. If Valliaveetil files procedurally-improper pleadings in the
future, the court will strike them with no further warning.
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 8

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaint are at issue for purposes of this order, but some of Valliaveetil’s statements in
the response are included to provide context.
In 2021, Valliaveetil began working as a nurse for the parent entity of North
Mountain. (Doc. 12 at 2.) In 2024, he began working at the North Mountain location, and
he received a positive employee evaluation on March 21, 2024. (Doc. 12 at 2, 6.) On March
28, 2025, Valliaveetil was fired. (Doc. 12 at 2.) According to the “Counseling/Disciplinary
Notice” drafted by North Mountain, Valliaveetil ignored a patient who left the dementia
locked unit and did not follow “proper infection control guidelines.” (Doc. 1-1 at 12.)
Valliaveetil drafted a written “Rebuttal” arguing the statements in the disciplinary notice
were “absolutely untrue” and “clear lie[s].” (Doc. 1-1 at 11.)
After he was terminated, Valliaveetil sought to enroll in continued health insurance
coverage but was told he was not eligible because he had been terminated for “Gross
Misconduct.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) Valliaveetil believes describing the reason for his termination
as misconduct was an “act of willful hatred and such manipulation as cause is
unacceptable.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) This “mal-deliberation” forced Valliaveetil to obtain health
insurance at a higher cost. (Doc. 12 at 2.)
In September 2025, Valliaveetil filed his complaint in state court. (Doc. 1-1.) That
complaint did not include any factual allegations, but Valliaveetil attached the disciplinary
notice and rebuttal. The only statements in the complaint—and the statements North
Mountain identifies as the claims Valliaveetil is attempting to pursue—are the following:
1. “Wrongful termination from employment with falsified allegations”;
2. “Willful manipulation of scheduled work hours based on hatred, causing wage loss,
and sabotage of wages”;
3. “Denial of COBRA Insurance coverage with falsified allegations”;
4. “Unprovided/Cancelled work hours to be treated as Unpaid wages.”
(Doc. 1-1 at 7.) North Mountain removed the case to federal court based on federal question
jurisdiction and then filed a motion to dismiss all claims except the one alleging denial of
COBRA coverage. (Doc. 11.)
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 8

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANALYSIS
To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (simplified). A claim is plausible “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. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on
its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Valliaveetil is representing himself, so his complaint must be liberally construed.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). But conclusory and vague allegations are
not enough to state a claim for relief. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
1982). And when liberally construing a pleading, the court “may not supply essential
elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Id. Here, Valliaveetil has provided no
factual allegations supporting most of his claims and the motion to dismiss could be granted
based on this failure alone. But to guide Valliaveetil if he attempts to amend, the court will
explain other flaws in his claims.
I. Wrongful Termination
Arizona law “strictly limits the claims available to an employee alleging wrongful
termination.” Peterson v. City of Surprise, 418 P.3d 1020, 1025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Such a claim may be brought only when “(1) a discharge is in violation of an employment
contract; (2) a discharge violates an Arizona statute; or (3) a discharge is in retaliation for
the employee’s assertion of certain rights protected by state law.” Guernsey v. Elko Wire
Rope Inc., No. CV-21-00848-PHX-DJH, 2023 WL 5348567, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 21,
2023). Valliaveetil does not provide factual allegations establishing any of these potential
avenues apply. He does not identify an employment contract or Arizona statute violated by
his termination, and he does not allege he was terminated in retaliation for asserting rights
that state law protects. The wrongful termination claim is dismissed.
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 8

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. Wage Loss and Unpaid Wages
Valliaveetil’s other two claims appear to be seeking recovery of unpaid wages.
North Mountain argues these claims are an attempt by Valliaveetil to recover wages for
time he did not work. (Doc. 11 at 7-8.) Valliaveetil appears to agree in acknowledging he
is seeking “$16,225.20 for unprovided working hours.” (Doc. 16 at 2.) Valliaveetil has not
identified the legal basis by which he believes he is owed money for hours he did not work.
And in general, federal and state law only mandate payment of wages for hours worked.
Cf. Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27, 31 (2014) (federal law establishes “a
minimum wage and overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
each workweek”). The wage claims are dismissed.
III. Leave to Amend
Valliaveetil’s health insurance claim is not impacted by this order and he need not
file an amended complaint for that claim to proceed. But if Valliaveetil wishes to amend
any of his other claims, he may do so provided he includes significantly more facts than
included in his current complaint. If he chooses to amend, Valliaveetil must set forth the
background facts and the claims he is attempting to pursue with enough detail that North
Mountain and the court can determine “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what
theory.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996).
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND. No later than May 18, 2026, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. If no
amended complaint is filed, plaintiff’s claim regarding health insurance will be the only
claim that proceeds.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case
Management Report, which must be filed within 4 weeks of the date of this order. It is
the responsibility of plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule 26(f) meeting and prepare the Joint Case
Management Report. Defendant(s) shall promptly and cooperatively participate in the Rule
26(f) meeting and assist in preparation of the Joint Case Management Report.
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 8

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Joint Case Management Report shall contain the following information in
separately-numbered paragraphs.
1. The parties who attended the Rule 26(f) meeting and assisted in developing
the Joint Case Management Report;
2. A list of all parties in the case, including any parent corporations or entities
(for recusal purposes);
3. Any parties that have not been served and an explanation of why they have
not been served, and any parties that have been served but have not answered
or otherwise appeared;
4. A statement of whether any party expects to add additional parties to the case
or otherwise amend pleadings;
5. The names of any parties not subject to the court’s personal (or in rem)
jurisdiction;
6. A description of the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, citing
specific jurisdictional statutes. If jurisdiction is based on diversity of
citizenship, the report shall include a statement of the citizenship of every
party and a description of the amount in dispute. See 28 U.S.C. §1332;
7. A short statement of the nature of the case (no more than three pages),
including a description of each claim, defense, and affirmative defense;
8. A listing of contemplated motions and a statement of the issues to be decided
by those motions;
9. Whether the case is suitable for reassignment to a United States Magistrate
Judge for all purposes or suitable for referral to a United States Magistrate
Judge for a settlement conference;
10. The status of any related cases pending before this or other courts;
11. A discussion of any issues relating to preservation, disclosure, or discovery
of electronically stored information (“ESI”), including the parties’
preservation of ESI and the form or forms in which it will be produced;
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 5 of 8

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. A discussion of any issues relating to claims of privilege or work product;
13. A discussion of necessary discovery, which should take into account the
December 1, 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) and should include:
a. The extent, nature, and location of discovery anticipated by the parties
and why it is proportional to the needs of the case;
b. Suggested changes, if any, to the discovery limitations imposed by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
c. The number of hours permitted for each deposition. The parties also
should consider whether a total number of deposition hours should be
set in the case, such as twenty total hours for plaintiffs and twenty
total hours for defendants. Such overall time limits have the advantage
of providing an incentive for each side to be as efficient as possible in
each deposition, while also allowing parties to allocate time among
witnesses depending on the importance and complexity of subjects to
be covered with the witnesses;
14. Proposed deadlines for each of the following events. In proposing deadlines,
the parties should keep in mind the Case Management Order will contain
deadlines to govern this case and once the dates have been set the court will
vary them only upon a showing of good cause. A request by counsel for
extension of discovery deadlines in any case that has been pending more than
two years must be accompanied by a certification stating the client is aware
of and approves of the requested extension. The court does not consider
settlement talks or the scheduling of mediations to constitute good cause for
an extension. The parties must propose the following:
a. A deadline for the completion of fact discovery, which will also be
the deadline for pretrial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3). This
deadline is the date by which all fact discovery must be completed.
Discovery requests must be served and depositions noticed
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 6 of 8

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sufficiently in advance of this date to ensure reasonable completion
by the deadline, including time to resolve discovery disputes. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, the court will not entertain discovery
disputes after this deadline;
b. Dates for full and complete expert disclosures and rebuttal expert
disclosures, if any;
c. A deadline for completion of all expert depositions;
d. A date by which any Rule 35 physical or mental examination will be
noticed if such an examination is required by any issues in the case;
e. A deadline for filing dispositive motions;
f. Case-specific deadlines and dates, such as the deadline to file a motion
for class certification or a date on which the parties are available for a
Markman (patent claim construction) hearing;
g. A date by which the parties shall have engaged in face-to-face good
faith settlement talks;
h. Whether a jury trial has been requested and whether the request for a
jury trial is contested, setting forth the reasons if the request is
contested;
i. Any other matters that will aid the court and parties in resolving this
case in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 1;
15. A statement indicating whether the parties would prefer that the court hold a
case management conference before issuing a scheduling order—and, if so,
an explanation of why the conference would be helpful.
/
/
/
/
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 7 of 8

- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall file a proposed Case Management
Order containing all the proposed dates at the same time they file the Rule 26(f) Case
Management Report. The proposed Case Management Order must also be emailed in Word
format to Lanham_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov.
Dated this 4th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03928-KML Document 17 Filed 05/04/26 Page 8 of 8