as to Plaintiffs EMTALA claim because as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, “[t]he plain text of the EMTALA explicitly limits a private right of action to [one against] the participating hospital.” Eberhardt v. City of Los Angeles, 62 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir.1995) (referring to . 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2), which provides, “Any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a participating hospital’s violation of a requirement of this section may, in a civil action against the participating hospital, obtain those damages available for personal injury under the law of the State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable relief as is appropriate.”) (emphasis added); see also Jackson v. East Bay Hosp., 246 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). ■ The Court finds that questions of material
holding that a company providing administrative purchasing and financial services to a hospital was not a hospital and thus could not be held directly liable under emtala holding that a hospital could not be an erisa beneficiary holding that because the contract between the hospital and the health insurance company had a hold harmless provision which stated the hospital would not bill or hold insurance subscribers liable for any hospital expenses covered by the subscribers insurance contract and all expenses from the patients treatment for the automobile accident were covered in such contract there was no debt upon which the hospital could assert a lien pursuant to the states hospital lien statute holding that where hospital used balance billing that since the hospital had already received payments from the patient and his health insurer and had agreed to accept that amount as payment in full for its services there was no longer any amount owing to the hospital and thus it could not assert a statutory hospital lien for the difference between its charges and the amount received in light of the negotiated network agreements holding that a hospital cannot be strictly liable under texas law for a defective catheter because a hospital is not a seller engaged in the business of selling the product