govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-8_25-cv-04011-0

1 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
DOROTHY L. WEST, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
Yoonie Smile, LLC, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
Civil Action No.: 8:25-cv-04011-PX 
 
MEMORANDUM ORDER 
 
Pending is the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Yoonie 
Smile, LLC, Sungoil Yoon, Bryan L. Nguyen, and Tina Ojeda. ECF No. 19. Also pending is 
Plaintiff Dorthy L. West (“West”)’s Motions to Seal at ECF Nos. 22 and 23 and Motion to Appoint 
Counsel at ECF No. 27. The motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 
105.6. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted, the motions to seal are granted 
in part, and the motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot. 
On December 8, 2025, West filed suit against the Defendants. ECF No. 1. In response, 
the Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint , and West, in turn, amended her 
complaint. ECF Nos. 11 & 15. At base, the suit sounds in dental malpractice and other associated 
wrongs. ECF No. 15 at 7; ECF No. 15-1. The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of the 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and “unauthorized bank 
transactions.” ECF No. 15 at 4. Defendants now move to dismiss the claims on jurisdictional and 
sufficiency grounds. ECF No. 19. 
The Court construes, as it must, the Amended Complaint facts as true and most favorably 
to West. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). Because West proceeds pro 
se, the Court gives the pleading an especially charitable reading so that all potentially viable claims 

2 
 
will proceed. Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 
97, 106 (1976)). But “even a pro se complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege a ‘plausible 
claim for relief.’” Forquer v. Schlee, No. RDB-12-969, 2012 WL 6087491, at *3 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 
2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 
Defendants first contend the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. The Amended 
Complaint avers that this Court retains federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 15 at 4. Because 
West alleges a violation of the Health Insurance Portability Act (“HIPAA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1181, the 
Court plainly may exercise federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (permitting suit in 
federal court for violations of federal statute). That said, HIPAA does not provide a private cause 
of action. Rather, the statute confers enforcement authority on the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services. Payne v. Taslimi , 998 F.3d 648, 660 (4th Cir. 2021) (collecting 
cases). Thus, West, a private litigant, cannot proceed with this claim, and it must be dismissed 
with prejudice. 
 The remaining causes of action sound in medical malpractice which are quintessentially 
state common law claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 
claims. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (citing United Mine Workers 
of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-727 (1966)). Thus, they are dismissed without prejudice 
so that West can proceed in state court if she chooses . West is forewarned, however, that if she 
wishes to proceed in state court, she must f irst exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a 
claim with the Maryland Director of the Health Claims Alternative Dispute Resolution Office 
(“HCADRO”).” Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-01, et seq. See also Roberts v. 
Suburban Hosp. Assoc., Inc., 73 Md. App. 1, 3 (1987). Once West provides such notice, she must 
also file with HCADRO a “ Certificate of Qualified Expert ” and an accompanying expert report 
explaining how the defendant health care provider fell below the applicable standard of care , 

3 
 
harming West in turn. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A- 04(b)(1)(i)(1). Failure to 
comply with these requirements will result in the state court dismissing her claim. Lewis v. 
Waletzky, 422 Md. 647, 650–51 (2011) (citing Kearney v. Berger, 416 Md. 628, 668–69 (2010)). 
As for West’s motions to seal, ECF Nos. 22 & 23, West urges the Court to keep her medical 
records out of public view. Although the public enjoys a presumptive right of access to Court 
records, the presumption may be rebutted upon a showing of countervailing interests in shielding 
private and protected information. See Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575 
(4th Cir. 2004). See also Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 
1988). 
The Court recognizes that sensitive health information enjoys such protection. See Rock 
v. McHugh, 819 F. Supp. 2d 456, 475–76 (D. Md. 2011). Thus, the Court will direct the sealing 
of those pages that include West’s medical records. See ECF No. 21- 2 at 1 -10, 14- 17. The 
remaining pages of ECF No. 21- 1 will be unsealed as they include no private or protected health 
information. The Court also grants the motion to seal ECF No. 24 because the lion’s share of the 
filing includes protected health information such that redaction is difficult if not impossible. 
For the reasons stated above, and on this 29th day of May 2026, the United States District 
Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERS that: 
1. The Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint at ECF No. 11 is DENIED as MOOT ; 
2. The Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint at ECF No. 19 is GRANTED; 
3. Plaintiff Dorthy L. West’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as follows: 
a. The federal claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 
b. The state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 
4. The Motion to Seal at ECF No. 22 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; The 
Clerk is DIRECTED to place on the public docket a redacted version of the exhibit and 

4 
 
redact pages 1-10 and 14-17 only; the Clerk is further DIRECTED to REDACT ECF No. 
1-3, pages 2–3, 9–12, 14–15; 
5. The Motion to Seal at ECF No. 23 is GRANTED; ECF No. 24 shall REMAIN under seal; 
6. The Clerk shall MAIL a copy of this Order to West and TRANSMIT via ECF to 
Defendants; and 
7. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 
 
 
Dated: May 29, 2026 /s/ 
Paula Xinis 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight