Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES PAUL ANDREW TORFASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLPATH,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-03458-JSW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
(ECF No. 48)
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Wellpath, LLC1 (“Wellpath”), the medical group contracted to operate
medical care at the Monterey County Jail when Plaintiff was an inmate there. Plaintiff claims
Wellpath violated his right to due process by failing to provide adequate medical care for his
concussion and other injuries sustained on August 5, 2020. Wellpath has filed a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that its bankruptcy
reorganization plan deprives this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff was given
an opportunity to file an opposition, but he has not responded to the motion. For the reasons
discussed below, the motion is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Standard of Review
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Review of a motion to under Rule 12(b) is limited to the
operative pleading, attachments, and judicially noticeable matters. See Khoja v. Orexigen
1 Wellpath has informed the court that its correct name is “Wellpath, LLC” and was previously
erroneously identified in this case as Wellpath, Inc..
Case 4:22-cv-03458-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 3

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Therapeutics, 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018).2 A pleading filed by a party unrepresented by
counsel must be liberally construed, and “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiff filed this case in 2022, seeking damages for the alleged failure of Wellpath
employees to provide him adequate medical care while he was an inmate at the Santa Rita County
Jail. In November 2024, Wellpath and its parent company filed bankruptcy petitions in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. See In re: Wellpath Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24-90533 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2025). In May 2025, the Bankruptcy Court ordered a
reorganization plan, which it subsequently revised and clarified in January 2026 (hereinafter “the
reorganization plan”). (ECF No. 48-1, Exs. A, C.)
Under the reorganization plan, all pre-existing cases and claims against Wellpath,
including the instant action, are enjoined from continuing. (See id. at 75, 79, 134, 139, 161.) See
11 U.S.C. § 524 (a), 101(15). The plan does provide a mechanism for a party to proceed with
claims against the debtors, including Wellpath; in order to do so, Plaintiff had to file a timely
motion in the Bankruptcy Court and present sufficient evidence establishing that a) insurance
coverage exists for such claims and b) either (i) there is no applicable self-insurance retention or
(ii) such claim will exceed the applicable self-insurance retention of two to three million dollars.
(ECF No. 48-1 at 161, 168-78.) The Bankruptcy Court further provided any party proceeding in
violation of the reorganization plan “shall be subject to the jurisdiction of [the Bankruptcy] Court,
and the Trust or the Post-Restructuring Debtors may seek any and all remedies available under the
Bankruptcy Code against such a party for interference with the Plan including, but not limited to,
monetary sanctions.” (Id. 162, 164.)
2 The Court grants Wellpath’s request for judicial notice of filings in its bankruptcy case,
In re: Wellpath Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-90533 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2025). See Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b); Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999.
Case 4:22-cv-03458-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 3

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Plaintiff has not alleged in the complaint or attachments any facts supporting a reasonable
inference he filed a timely motion in the Bankruptcy Court that complies with the reorganization
plan. Nor can such an inference be reasonably drawn from the judicially noticed court filings. As
a result, the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record is that Plaintiff did not
file the motion required by the reorganization plan for proceeding with his claims, that such failure
violated the reorganization plan, and that such violation rendered gave jurisdiction over this action
to the Bankruptcy Court, this case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. This dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking to pursue the claims
herein by filing a motion in the Bankruptcy Court that complies with the reorganization plan.3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, Wellpath’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 17, 2026
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
3 Wellpath’s additional argument that Plaintiff “could not” succeed in such a motion because he
has not “provided sufficient evidence” that his claims exceed Wellpath’s self-insurance retention
is rejected because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff to submit
evidence with their pleadings or to defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b).
Case 4:22-cv-03458-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 3