Beach et al v. United Behavioral Health

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Seeborg granting 42 Motion to Stay. (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2022)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BARBARA BEACH, et al.,

Case No. 21-cv-08612-RS

Plaintiffs,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER GRANTING STAY

12
13

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

14
15
16

Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 2022 WL 850647 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2022), Tomlinson v.

17

United Behavioral Health, No. 3:19-cv-6999-RS, and this action all involve challenges to the

18

clinical guidelines that United Behavioral Health used to determine medical necessity under its

19

benefit plans. In Wit, the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision that, if it stands, may foreclose all of

20

plaintiffs’ claims in Tomlinson and at least a substantial portion of plaintiffs’ claims here. Briefing

21

on the Wit plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc is underway at the Ninth Circuit. By a

22

stipulated order, a previously imposed stay of proceedings in Tomlinson has been extended

23

through the time a mandate issues in Wit.

24

Plaintiffs in all three actions are represented by the same counsel. Plaintiffs are unwilling

25

to stipulate to a stay here, however, because they contend this action includes an additional

26

claim—the so-called “bundling claim”—that they insist will not be affected by the ultimate result

27

in Wit, whatever that may turn out to be. Although plaintiffs have framed the bundling claim as a

28

subclass to a main class that is substantially identical to the Wit and Tomlinson classes, they argue

1
2

Whether or not that is correct, however, plaintiffs acknowledge factual issues and

3

discovery will overlap. From that, they conclude no stay of this action is warranted, even though

4

they concede a stay would be appropriate absent the bundling subclass. The better approach,

5

though, is to stay the case notwithstanding the possibility that the Wit decision may have less

6

direct effect on the bundling subclass. The potential import of the Wit decision on the viability of

7

at least a large part of this case is too great to ignore, and there is no undue prejudice to plaintiffs

8

from a limited stay.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

it can survive independently even if the main class fails.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, and this action is stayed pending the issuance of the

10

mandate in Witt. In the event further proceedings in the Ninth Circuit become unduly protracted,

11

plaintiffs may move to lift the stay.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: July 7, 2022
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

2

21-cv-08612-RS