Horisons Unlimited v. Santa Cruz-Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care Commission, et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO DENY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 2 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on January 29, 2014. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

HORISONS UNLIMTED, et. al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

CASE NO. CV F 14-0123 LJO MJS
ORDER TO DENY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 2.)

vs.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SANTA CRUZ-MONTEREYMERCED MANAGED MEDICAL
CARE COMMISSION dba
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

19

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry a voluminous caseload, the heaviest in

20

the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases

21

and matters. This Court cannot address all arguments, evidence and matters presented by

22

parties and addresses only the arguments, evidence and matters necessary to reach the decision

23

in this order given the shortage of district judges and staff. The parties and counsel are

24

encouraged to contact United States Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to address

25

this Court’s inability to accommodate the parties and this action.

26

BACKGROUND

27

Plaintiffs Horisons Unlimited ("HU") and Horisons Unlimited Health Care (collectively

28

"plaintiffs") own and operate healthcare clinics in Merced County. Defendant Santa Cruz1

1

Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care Commission dba Central California Alliance for

2

Health ("Alliance"), pursuant to agreements with the California Department of Health Care

3

Services, arranges health care for Merced County Medi-Cal patients. To that end, Alliance and

4

HU entered into a Primary Care Physician Services Agreement ("services agreement") by

5

which HU became an Alliance member to provide healthcare services to Merced County Medi-

6

Cal patients. The services agreement requires HU's healthcare providers to meet Alliance's

7

credentialing standards.

8

On January 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed this action and papers seeking injunctive relief.

9

This Court construes plaintiffs' disjointed, verbose papers to: (1) complain that Alliance's

10

delays to credential plaintiffs' healthcare providers result in denial of enrollment of new

11

member patients for plaintiffs; and (2) seek injunctive relief to in effect compel Alliance to no

12

less than temporarily credential plaintiffs' healthcare providers so that they can treat Medi-Cal

13

patients.

14

DISCUSSION

15

Injunctive Relief Standards

16

Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden for injunctive relief.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

F.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A) permits a TRO “only if” “specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will
result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” As such, the Court
may only grant such relief “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”
Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 375 (2008). To prevail, the moving
party must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the moving
party will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tips in the moving party’s favor; and (4) that preliminary injunctive relief is in the
public interest. Winter, 129 U.S. at 374. In considering the four factors, the Court “must
balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the
granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 376 (quoting Amoco Co.
v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531 542 (1987)); Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v.
2

1

Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 651 (9th Cir. 2009).

2

extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear

3

showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117

4

S.Ct. 1865 (1997) (citation omitted).

5
6

Preliminary injunctive relief “is an

With these standards in mind this Court turns to impediments to plaintiffs' requested
injunctive relief.
Likelihood Of Success On Merits

7
8

Pursuant to Winter, plaintiffs must make a “clear showing” that they are “likely to

9

succeed on the merits.” Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 375-376; Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

978 (9th Cir. 2009).
As to likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiffs champion their antitrust and civil
rights claims. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits on such claims
to support injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' injunctive relief papers, in large part, simply repeat their
complaint, nearly verbatim at points. Plaintiffs fail to identify elements of their claims and to
demonstrate how they are likely to satisfy such elements. Plaintiffs largely rely on impertinent
legal conclusions and fail to summarize their particular claims. Moreover, this Court questions
whether plaintiffs' claims would survive F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Irreparable Injury Absent Injunctive Relief
“Preliminary injunctive relief is available only if plaintiffs ‘demonstrate that irreparable
injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.’” Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1081
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 375) (noting that the Supreme Court in Winter

21

rejected the Ninth Circuit’s “possibility of irreparable harm” test). “Typically, monetary harm

22

does not constitute irreparable harm.” Cal Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847,

23

851 (9th Cir. 2009). “Economic damages are not traditionally considered irreparable because

24

the injury can later be remedied by a damage award.” Cal Pharmacists, 563 F.3d at 852

25

(italics in original). However, “intangible injuries, such as damage to . . . goodwill qualify as

26

irreparable harm.” Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944

27
28

F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1001).
Plaintiffs fail to establish that they will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of
3

1

equitable relief.

2

interpretation and application of the services agreement. As such, economic damages are

3

available to plaintiffs if they are able to demonstrate breach of the services agreement. There is

4
5
6
7
8

The record suggests that this matter is a contract dispute subject to

no sufficient evidence of damage to plaintiffs' goodwill to qualify as irreparable harm.
Balance Of Equities
The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo if the balance
of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to
secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of
Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981).

9

Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the balance of equities merits requested injunctive

10

relief. The record hints that plaintiffs attempt to circumvent services agreement credentialing

11

to attract or maintain healthcare providers.

12

predominantly contract issues not subject to injunctive relief.

13

Court's need to intervene to preserve the balance of equities.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs' claims, when distilled, address
Nothing demonstrates this

Public Interest
“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for
the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter, 129 S.
Ct. at 376-77 (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)). “The public
interest analysis for the issuance of a preliminary injunction requires [the Court] to consider
whether there exists some critical public interest that would be injured by the grant of
preliminary relief.” Indep. Living Ctr., So. Cal. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 659 (2009).
No meaningful public interest supports injunctive relief.

Granting the requested

21

injunctive relief could expose plaintiffs' patients to treatment by healthcare providers who are

22

unqualified or who fail to meet minimal Medi-Cal standards.

23

Unworkable Relief

24

Plaintiffs seek unworkable injunctive relief. In essence, plaintiffs seek affirmative

25

relief and this Court's intervention into Alliance's credentialing of plaintiffs' healthcare

26

providers, a matter subject to the services agreement. Plaintiffs ask this Court to override

27

services agreement provisions so that they are not enforced. Plaintiffs offer no legal authority

28

to empower this Court to issue such relief. "Injunctive relief could involve extraordinary
4

1

supervision by this court. Injunctive relief may be inappropriate where it requires constant

2

supervision." Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 966 F.2d 1292, 1300

3

(9th Cir. 1992). This Court is unable to monitor credentialing and new member enrollment as

4

plaintiffs seek. This Court is not, and cannot be, an overseer of the services agreement.
Presence Of A Government Agency

5
6
7

A further problem for plaintiffs is that they seek injunctive relief against a public entity
and officials, including Merced County and its supervisors.

8

When a government agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the

9

dispatch of its own internal affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001)

10

(quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state

11

agency is involved, these considerations are, if anything, strengthened because of federalism

12

concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128. “[A]ny injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessary

13

disruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course of proceeding.’” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128

14

(quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669, 679 (1974)).

15
16

Federalism concerns and potential disruption of a local public entity and officials raise
further grounds to support denial of injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

17
18
19

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DENIES plaintiffs injunctive relief and
further relief requested in its papers (doc. 2).

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 29, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
5