LD et al v. United Behavioral Health et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 33 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend; granting 34 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. Amended Complaint due by 9/25/2020. Response within 30 days of filing of amended complaint. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2020)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CASE NO. 4:20-cv-02254 YGR
LD, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

8

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 34
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, ET AL.,
Defendants.

11
12

Plaintiffs1 bring this putative class action against defendants United Behavioral Health

13

(“United”) and Viant, Inc. for claims arising out of United’s alleged failure to reimburse non-party

14

Summit Estate at the Usual, Customary, and Reasonable Rate (“UCR”) for Intensive Outpatient

15

Program (“IOP”) services that it provided to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ conduct

16

caused them injury, because it forced them to pay out-of-pocket any amounts that United failed to

17

reimburse Summit Estate. In the complaint, plaintiffs assert, on their own behalf and on behalf of

18

a proposed class of similarly-situated United members, claims under the Employee Retirement

19

Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

20

Act (“RICO”).

21

Now pending are two motions to dismiss all claims in the complaint under Federal Rule of

22

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that: (1) all of the claims in the complaint are

23

inadequately pleaded; and (2) plaintiffs lack RICO standing.

24
25

Having carefully considered the pleadings and the parties’ briefs, and for the reasons set
forth below, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs are LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ. Plaintiffs have used pseudonyms to protect the
confidentiality of their identity pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege as follows. Plaintiffs are members of active health insurance policies

3

administered by United. Compl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 1. Every such policy “provided coverage for

4

out-of-network benefits for mental health and substance use disorder treatment at usual,

5

customary, or reasonable rates.” Id. ¶ 6. United describes UCR rates on its website as being

6

“based on what other health care professionals in the relevant geographic areas or regions charge

7

for their services.” Id. ¶ 8.

8
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Before obtaining IOP services from Summit Estate, an out-of-network provider, plaintiffs
signed a contract with Summit Estate that makes them “responsible for amounts not paid by

10

United.” Id. ¶ 27. Summit Estate contacted United to verify out-of-network benefits and United

11

represented that the IOP services in question would be paid “at UCR rates” and that the claims for

12

such services “were not subject to third-party repricing by Viant.” Id. ¶ 26. Based on the “plain

13

language” of the plans, “it was understood by all parties that 100% of UCR was equivalent to

14

100% of the billed charges of Summit Estate.”2 Id. ¶¶ 174, 187, 200, 212, 224. United “through

15

plan documents, marketing materials, EOBs, and other materials” represented to plaintiffs that

16

their plans would pay for out-of-network IOP services “at the UCR amount according to an

17

objective, empirical methodology.” Id. ¶ 104.

18

After receiving the IOP services, claims were submitted to United for payment according

19

to the “out-of-network rate.” Id. ¶ 8. Instead of “paying UCR,” United engaged defendant Viant

20

to “negotiate” reimbursements. Id. ¶ 18. Viant has “financial incentives” to negotiate low

21

reimbursements. Id. ¶¶ 40, 46. Viant’s negotiations resulted in offers to reimburse for IOP

22

services at an amount below the UCR, and United paid the plaintiffs’ claims at the reduced Viant

23

amount. Id. ¶¶ 36-38. Neither United nor Viant disclosed to plaintiffs the methodology they used

24

for calculating the reimbursement rates for IOP services. Id. ¶¶ 44, 127.

25
26
27
28

2

In their opposition, plaintiffs contradict the allegations in the complaint by asserting that
“Plaintiffs BW, CJ, DB, LD and RH do not allege that United is required to pay 100% of their
providers’ charges.” Opp’n at 1, Docket No. 46.
2

1

No plaintiff has an agreement with Viant that permits Viant to negotiate with providers on

2

his or her behalf. Id. ¶ 34. Yet, Viant represented “through written and oral correspondence” that

3

it had authority to negotiate with providers on the patients’ behalf. Id. ¶ 51.

4

“Every claim at issue in this litigation has been underpaid by United and overpaid or

5

currently owed by the Plaintiffs and the Class.” Id. ¶ 79. “United’s underpayment of the claims at

6

issue here resulted in unduly large balance bills to Plaintiffs.” Id. ¶ 99.
The Explanation of Benefits (“EOB”) sent to plaintiffs do not state that Viant’s repricing is

8

permitted under the plaintiffs’ plans and that the repriced amount negotiated by Viant is consistent

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

with plan terms. Id. ¶ 53. The EOBs also do not state that the repriced amount is an “adverse

10

benefit determination” that plaintiffs have the right to appeal. Id. Accordingly, plaintiffs did not

11

have the opportunity to appeal the “underpayment[s].” Id. ¶ 56.

12

Plaintiffs allege that United and other insurers were required as part of the settlement of an

13

unrelated litigation (“Ingenix litigation”) to underwrite the creation of a database called the “FAIR

14

health” database, which contains rates for the reimbursement for IOP treatment. Id. ¶ 20.

15

Plaintiffs allege that United and the other insurers were not required by the Ingenix litigation

16

settlement to use the FAIR health database.3 Id.

17

Plaintiffs assert the following on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of

18

members “of a health benefit plan either administered or insured by United” whose claims for out-

19

of-network IOP services “were underpaid or repriced by United and Viant,” id. ¶ 233: a claim

20

against (1) both defendants under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); (2) United for underpaid benefits

21

under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (3) United for breach of plan provisions under ERISA,

22

29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (4) United for ERISA disclosure violations under 29 U.S.C. §

23

1132(c)(1); (5) United for breach of fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. § 1109 and 29 U.S.C. §

24

1132(a)(3); (6) United for violations of ERISA’s full and fair review statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1133;

25

and (7) two claims against both defendants for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).

26
27
28

3

Plaintiffs argue in their opposition that United is required by “the language of its plans”
to use the FAIR health database to reimburse the out-of-network IOP services at issue. Opp’n at
2, Docket No. 46. Plaintiffs do not allege this theory in the complaint. As noted above, plaintiffs
allege in the complaint that United is not required to use the FAIR Health database.
3

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual

2

matter that, when accepted as true, states a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

4

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

5

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

6

misconduct alleged.” Id. While this standard is not a probability requirement, “[w]here a

7

complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the

8

line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

citation omitted). In determining whether a plaintiff has met this plausibility standard, the Court

10

must “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light

11

most favorable” to the plaintiff. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). “[A]

12

court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers, such as a memorandum in

13

opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Schneider v. California Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d

14

1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). A court should grant leave to amend unless “the pleading could

15

not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal.

16

Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).

17

III.

18

DISCUSSION
As noted, defendants move to dismiss all claims in the complaint under Federal Rule of

19

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that: (1) all of the claims in the complaint are

20

inadequately pleaded; and (2) plaintiffs lack RICO standing.

21

The Court addresses these arguments in turn.

22

A.

23

ERISA
1.

Breach of Plan Terms

24

Under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, an ERISA plan “participant or beneficiary” may

25

bring an action “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights

26

under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.”

27

29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). To state a claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B), “a plaintiff must allege

28

facts that establish the existence of an ERISA plan as well as the provisions of the plan that entitle
4

1

it to benefits.” Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 3d

2

1110, 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Plaintiffs assert two claims under Section 502(a)(1)(B) against United, one for “underpaid

4

benefits,” and another for breach of the “plan provisions.” Compl. ¶¶ 292-311. Both claims are

5

predicated on the theory that United underpaid plaintiffs’ claims for out-of-network IOP services

6

in contravention of the provisions of plaintiffs’ plans. Id. ¶¶ 301, 305. Plaintiffs seek “underpaid

7

benefits” as relief for both claims. Id. ¶¶ 302, 311.

8
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

United moves to dismiss these claims on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to identify
the plan provisions that require it to reimburse for the IOP services at issue at the UCR rate.4
In their opposition, plaintiffs do not distinguish the authorities that United cites for the

11

proposition that they are required to identify the relevant plan provisions to state a claim under

12

Section 502(a)(1)(B).

13

The Court concludes that United’s motion is well-taken given the allegations in the

14

complaint. Plaintiffs’ claims are predicated on allegations that United under-reimbursed Summit

15

Estate for IOP services it provided to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that, pursuant to the “plain

16

language” of their healthcare plans, United was required, but failed, to reimburse Summit Estate

17

based on UCR, with UCR being “equivalent to 100% of the billed charges of Summit Estate.”

18

Compl. ¶¶ 174, 187, 200, 212, 224. Plaintiffs, however, do not identify the terms of their plans

19

that require United to reimburse Summit Estate for IOP services based on UCR or at 100% of

20

Summit Estate’s billed charges. In the absence of allegations that identify the plan terms at issue,

21

plaintiffs fail to raise the reasonable inference that United breached the terms of their plans. See

22

Almont Ambulatory, 99 F. Supp. 3d at 1155 (dismissing claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B) on the

23

ground that plaintiffs failed to identify the terms of the plan that provided coverage and

24
25
26
27
28

4

Defendants also argue that plaintiffs’ claims are subject to dismissal because the terms of
plaintiffs’ plans did not require United to reimburse Summit Estate for 100% of Summit Estate’s
billed charges. Defendants request judicial notice of excerpts of summary plan documents.
Docket No. 35. Plaintiffs oppose the request, arguing that the excerpts omit information that is
material to their claims. Docket No. 47. The Court will deny defendants’ request for judicial
notice as to the plan excerpts because defendants have not shown that they contain all relevant
plan terms, and because the present motions can be resolved without consulting such excerpts.
5

1

reimbursement rates for the medical services at issue); Health Glendale Outpatient Surgery Ctr. v.

2

United Healthcare Servs., No. 19-55412, 805 Fed. App’x 530, 2020 WL 2537317, at *1 (9th Cir.

3

May 19, 2020) (affirming dismissal of claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B) where plaintiff relied on

4

“generalized allegations” about plan breaches but failed to identify “any plan terms that specify

5

benefits that the defendants were obligated to pay but failed to pay”).

6
7
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims under Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), are
subject to dismissal.
2.

Failure to Make Required Disclosures

Under ERISA Section 502(c)(1), a participant or beneficiary can hold a plan administrator

10

liable for (1) failing to comply with certain disclosure and notice obligations; or (2) failing or

11

refusing to comply with a request for information by the participant or beneficiary. 29 U.S.C. §

12

1132(c)(1). A claim for failure to make required disclosures can be brought only against a “plan

13

administrator.” Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng'g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir.

14

2000) (holding that “only the plan administrator can be held liable for failing to comply with the

15

reporting and disclosure requirements”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

16

Plaintiffs assert a claim against United under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). Compl. ¶¶ 312-15.

17

This claim is premised on allegations that United failed to “disclose material information about its

18

out-of-network benefit reductions, and illegal adverse benefit determinations,” made “material

19

changes to the Plaintiffs and Class’ benefit policy without disclosure,” and failed to provide

20

accurate EOBs and Summary Plan Documents (SPDs). Id. ¶ 314.

21

United moves to dismiss this claim on the grounds that it is not the plan administrator and

22

therefore cannot be sued under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1), and that, and even if it could be sued under

23

that statute, plaintiffs’ claim would nevertheless fail because they have not alleged any violations

24

of ERISA’s disclosure requirements.

25

ERISA defines a plan administrator as “(i) the person specifically so designated by the

26

terms of the instrument under which the plan is operated; (ii) if an administrator is not so

27

designated, the plan sponsor; or (iii) in the case of a plan for which an administrator is not

28
6

1

designated and a plan sponsor cannot be identified, such other person as the Secretary may by

2

regulation prescribe.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(16)(A).

3

Here, plaintiffs have alleged no factual matter to raise the inference that United was
designated under any plan documents as the plan administrator, or that United can otherwise be

5

deemed as the plan administrator under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(16)(A). In their opposition, plaintiffs

6

state, without authority, that United is the “proper defendant” for this claim because “United

7

agreed to provide administrative functions for the plan, including provision of appropriate plan

8

documents to plan participants and beneficiaries upon request.” Opp’n at 22, Docket No. 46.

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

Nothing in Section 1002(16)(A) suggests that an entity can become a plan administrator for the

10

purposes of a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) by “agreeing” to provide administrative

11

functions for the plan. To the contrary, courts routinely dismiss with prejudice claims under 29

12

U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) asserted against entities that allegedly served as “de facto” administrators by

13

virtue of having assumed administrative responsibilities. See, e.g., In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-

14

Network UCR Rates Litig., 865 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1045 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“[C]ourts in this circuit

15

have consistently concluded that liability cannot attach to a third party insurer that assumes

16

administrative responsibilities under the de facto administrator theory.”) (collecting cases).

17

Accordingly, this claim is subject to dismissal on the basis that plaintiffs have not alleged facts to

18

show that United can be sued under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1).

19

Even if United were the plan administrator for the purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1),

20

however, the claim would still be subject to dismissal because plaintiffs’ allegations do not give

21

rise to the reasonable inference that United failed to comply with ERISA’s disclosure

22

requirements. In the complaint, plaintiffs cite to 29 U.S.C. sections 1024(4) and 1022 as the

23

disclosure provisions that United allegedly violated. Such provisions provide that a plan

24

administrator is required to disclose, upon request, the summary plan description and other plan

25

documents. See 29 U.S.C. § 1024(4) (providing that an administrator shall, upon written request

26

of any participant or beneficiary, furnish a copy of the latest updated summary, plan description,

27

and the latest annual report, any terminal report, the bargaining agreement, trust agreement,

28

contract, or other instruments under which the plan is established or operated”); 29 U.S.C. § 1022
7

1

(“A summary plan description of any employee benefit plan shall be furnished to participants and

2

beneficiaries as provided in section 1024(b) of this title.”). The complaint is devoid of allegations

3

that plaintiffs made a request to United for any plan documents covered by these provisions.

4

Accordingly, plaintiffs do not raise the reasonable inference that United violated these provisions.

5

See Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc., 532 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “a

6

defendant can’t be liable [under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)]” for failing to disclose information upon

7

request of the participant or beneficiary “unless it received a request”).
To the extent that plaintiffs’ 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) claim is predicated on the theory that

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

United’s plan documents and other communications, such as EOBs, were not accurate, that claim

10

fails because plaintiffs have not shown that a claim disputing the accuracy of such materials can be

11

brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1).

12

Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs seek to assert a 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) claim based on

13

the theory that United was required, but failed, to disclose the methodology it used to calculate

14

UCR in the context of the reimbursements it provided to Summit Estate, the claim is subject to

15

dismissal because plaintiffs have not identified any provision of ERISA that requires disclosure of

16

such information.

17
18
19

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) is subject to dismissal.
3.

Breach of Fiduciary Duties

A fiduciary can be held liable for breaches any of the “responsibilities, obligations, or

20

duties imposed upon fiduciaries by [ERISA].” 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). Under 29 U.S.C.

21

§ 1104(a)(l)(D), a fiduciary is required to discharge its duties with respect to a plan solely in the

22

interest of the participants and beneficiaries and in accordance with the documents and

23

instruments governing the plan. A plaintiff suing for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) can seek

24

relief as to an individual participant (as opposed to plan-wide relief) if it brings the claim under 29

25

U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 509-12 (1996).

26

Plaintiffs seek individual relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) based on allegations that

27

United violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1104(a) by failing to reimburse Summit Estate for 100% of

28

its billed charges for each plaintiff, which plaintiffs allege amounts to out-of-network benefit
8

1

reductions and adverse benefit determinations that were not authorized by the plan documents.

2

Compl. ¶ 322. Plaintiffs also appear to allege that the EOBs they received regarding the

3

reimbursements at issue were inaccurate on the basis that the reimbursements were not authorized

4

by the plan documents. Id.

5
6
7

Defendants move to dismiss this claim on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to allege
that United’s actions were contrary to the plan documents.
Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duties is predicated on alleged actions by United
“that were not authorized by the plan documents.” Compl. ¶ 322. For the reasons discussed

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

above, plaintiffs have failed to allege any breaches of the plan terms or the “plan documents” in

10
11

connection with United’s reimbursements for the IOP services at issue.
Accordingly, this claim is subject to dismissal.
4.

12
13

Full and Fair Review

Under 29 U.S.C. § 1133, a benefit plan must provide notice and an opportunity to appeal

14

when a participant’s “claim for benefits under the plan has been denied.” 29 U.S.C. § 1133.

15

Under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h), a plan is required to establish a procedure for providing a

16

reasonable opportunity to appeal an adverse benefit determination to an appropriate named

17

fiduciary of the plan. An adverse determination includes, in relevant part, a “denial, reduction, or

18

termination of, or a failure to provide or make payment (in whole or in part) for, a benefit[.]” 29

19

C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(m)(4)(i). Under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(g), the plan administrator is

20

required to provide a claimant with written or electronic notification of any adverse benefit

21

determination.

22

Plaintiffs assert a claim against United for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1133. It is predicated

23

on allegations that United denied them the opportunity to appeal the “underpaid claims” at issue,

24

which plaintiffs allege are adverse benefit determinations. Compl. ¶¶ 332-35. Plaintiffs further

25

aver that the EOBs they received from United did not state that the “underpaid claims” were “an

26

adverse benefit determination that the patient has the right to appeal.” Id. ¶ 53.

27
28

United moves to dismiss this claim on the ground that it fails because the EOBs in
question, which United attached to its request for judicial notice, state the amounts that United
9

1

paid to Summit Estate and any remaining balance that plaintiffs were required to pay, as well as

2

the process for appealing such determinations. See Req. for Judicial Notice, Nguyen Decl., Ex. 4-

3

8, Docket No. 35-2.

4

The Court will consider the EOBs under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, which
permits courts “to consider documents in situations where the complaint necessarily relies upon a

6

document or the contents of the document are alleged in a complaint, the document’s authenticity

7

is not in question and there are no disputed issues as to the document’s relevance.” Coto

8

Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, plaintiffs do not dispute the

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

authenticity of the EOBs that United attached to its request for judicial notice, dispute that the

10

EOBs in question are the ones to which they refer in the complaint, or argue that the EOBs are not

11

relevant to their claims. See Objections to RJN at 4, Docket No. 47. Plaintiffs’ only argument

12

against the Court’s consideration of the EOBs is that, “[w]hile the EOB’s [sic] are an evidentiary

13

piece of the puzzle in this case, they are not a necessary or determinative factor in this motion or at

14

this stage of the litigation.” Id. The Court finds this argument to be unpersuasive.

15

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the EOBs are a “determinative factor” to the resolution

16

of the present motions, because the EOBs appear to directly contradict plaintiffs’ allegations that

17

such documents failed to inform them of the reimbursement determinations at issue or of their

18

right to appeal such determinations. See Nguyen Decl., Ex. 4-8, Docket No. 35-2. The EOBs

19

clearly state the amounts that United would reimburse and any remaining amounts that the

20

plaintiffs would owe to Summit Estate, and that plaintiffs could appeal such reimbursement

21

determinations. Id. The Court is not required to accept as true allegations that are contradicted by

22

exhibits incorporated into the complaint by reference, as the EOBs are here. Agua Caliente Band

23

of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside Cty., 181 F. Supp. 3d 725, 732 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (“A court must

24

construe the factual allegations in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving

25

party, but it need not accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by matters

26

properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibits incorporated into the complaint by reference.”).

27

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claim for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1133 is subject to dismissal to the

28
10

1

extent that it is predicated on allegations that the EOBs that plaintiffs received failed to inform

2

them of the reimbursements at issue or of their right to appeal.

3

Plaintiffs’ claim for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1133 is also subject to dismissal to the extent

4

that it is based on the theory that the EOBs were required, but failed, to state the words “adverse

5

benefit determination,” as plaintiffs have cited no authority to support that proposition.

6

5.

Catch-all Equitable Relief

Under ERISA’s catch-all provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), a participant, beneficiary, or

8

fiduciary may bring a civil action “(A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to

10

redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the

11

plan[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).

12

Plaintiffs assert two catch-all claims for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)

13

against both defendants, which they plead “in the alternative” to the legal remedies they seek in

14

connection with their other ERISA claims. Compl. ¶¶ 337-58. Specifically, plaintiffs seek an

15

injunction requiring defendants to pay them the amounts that United allegedly “should have paid

16

for the claims at issue in this action,” which United allegedly “improperly retained.” Id. ¶ 350.

17

Plaintiffs also seek disgorgement of illicit profits and the “reprocessing” of the claims at issue

18

using “an appropriate methodology.” Id. at page 54. Plaintiffs allege that they seek relief under

19

29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) “only to the extent that the Court finds that the injunctive relief sought to

20

remedy Counts III through VI are unavailable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).” Id. ¶¶ 338,

21

345. “Counts III through VI” refer to plaintiffs’ claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) for

22

breach of the plan terms; under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) for failure to make required disclosures;

23

and under 29 U.S.C. § 1109 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) for breach of fiduciary duties.

24

Defendants move to dismiss these claims on the ground that they are subject to dismissal

25

for the same reasons that the other ERISA claims should be dismissed, as they are based on the

26

same allegations and theories and seek the same relief. Defendants further argue that the nature of

27

the relief that plaintiffs seek through these claims is legal rather than equitable.

28
11

1

The Court agrees with Defendants. Section 1132(a)(3) can be invoked to enjoin ERISA

2

violations or to redress such violations, or to enforce an ERISA provision or the terms of the plan.

3

29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Here, as discussed above, plaintiffs have not stated a claim for any

4

ERISA violation, nor have they raised the reasonable inference that defendants’ conduct requires

5

enforcement of an ERISA provision or the terms of any plan. Plaintiffs’ claims under Section

6

1132(a)(3), therefore, are subject to dismissal on this basis.

7

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to re-assert claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) in the
alternative in an amended complaint, any such claims must be supported by allegations that raise

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

the reasonable inference (1) that defendants have violated ERISA or that defendants’ conduct

10

requires the enforcement of an ERISA provision or the terms of a plan, and (2) that the remedies

11

sought are equitable, not legal. “To qualify as equitable relief, both (1) the basis for the plaintiff’s

12

claim and (2) the nature of the underlying remedies sought must be equitable rather than legal.”

13

Depot, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 915 F.3d 643, 660 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct.

14

223 (2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the complaint is devoid of

15

allegations that raise the inference that the basis for the remedies that plaintiffs seek under Section

16

1132(a)(3) is equitable; plaintiffs’ Section 1132(a)(3) claims are predicated on the same theories

17

as their other ERISA claims, which are legal. Further, the complaint lacks allegations showing

18

that the nature of the remedies sought is equitable, as opposed to legal.

19

In their opposition, plaintiffs argue that they seek disgorgement of amounts by which

20

defendants were unjustly enriched, a surcharge, and an order requiring defendants to “reprocess”

21

the claims for IOP services at issue, which they contend are equitable remedies. Opp’n at 15,

22

Docket No. 46. Regardless of how plaintiffs label their requested remedies, the Court cannot

23

reasonably infer that such remedies are permissible under Section 1132(a)(3) in the absence of

24

allegations raising the inference that the basis and nature of such remedies is equitable. See Depot,

25

915 F.3d at 661-65 (holding that a court must “look to the substance of the remedy sought rather

26

than the label placed on that remedy” when determining whether the plaintiff seeks “appropriate

27

equitable relief” under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) and affirming dismissal at the pleading stage of

28
12

1

claims for “disgorgement” and “restitution” because such claims were legal, not equitable,

2

“notwithstanding the[ir] labels”).

3

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims under 1132(a)(3) are subject to dismissal.

4

B.

5

Section 1962(c) of RICO provides, “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or

RICO

6

associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of

7

such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”

8

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Here, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated RICO Section 1962(c). This claim is

10

premised on the following allegations: United and Viant are engaged in an illegal “kick-back”

11

scheme through which United and Viant conspired to take and retain for their own benefit funds

12

given to them by plan members. Compl. ¶¶ 243-91. United sent plaintiffs EOBs that falsely

13

represented that “benefits were available and paid based on the UCR rate,” id. ¶ 256, “did not state

14

that they were adverse benefit determinations” as a result of Viant’s repricing, and did not provide

15

“any process by which the adverse benefit determinations could be appealed,” id. ¶ 252. Viant

16

falsely represented in its patient advocacy (“PAD”) letters to plaintiffs and providers that it had

17

authority to negotiate on patients’ behalf. Id. ¶¶ 253, 259. Consequently, plaintiffs were injured

18

by this alleged scheme because of “their payment of excessive balance bills” for IOP services. Id.

19

¶¶ 265, 288. Moreover, the predicate offenses for their RICO claim are wire fraud and mail fraud

20

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, as well as “Federal Health offenses” in violation of 18

21

U.S.C. § 24 and ERISA, 18 U.S.C. § 1027. Id. ¶ 247.

22
23
24
25

Defendants move to dismiss this claim on the grounds that plaintiffs’ allegations are
insufficient to state a claim under Section 1962(c) and that plaintiffs lack RICO standing.
1.

Elements of RICO Section 1962(c) Claim

To state a claim under Section 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege: “(1) conduct (2) of an

26

enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d

27

541, 547 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). “Rule 9(b)’s requirement that ‘[i]n all averments of fraud or

28

mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity’ applies
13

1

to civil RICO fraud claims.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065-66 (9th Cir.

2

2004) (internal citation omitted).

3
4

Here, plaintiffs’ RICO claim under Section 1962(c) is subject to dismissal for failure to
allege facts to satisfy the following elements.
a.

5
6

Enterprise

“An enterprise that is not a legal entity is commonly known as an ‘association-in-fact’
enterprise.” Id. at 940 (citation omitted). To plead an association-in-fact enterprise, a plaintiff

8

must allege: (1) a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct; (2) an ongoing

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

organization, either formal or informal; and (3) facts that the associates function as a continuing

10
11

unit. Odom, 486 F.3d at 553 (citation omitted).
Here, plaintiffs have not averred factual matter suggesting that defendants acted with a

12

common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. The allegations in the complaint describe a

13

contractual relationship between defendants that required Viant to negotiate reimbursements on

14

behalf of United. Plaintiffs allege no facts to raise the inference that defendants’ activities

15

pursuant to this contractual relationship were contrary to United’s obligations under the ERISA

16

plans it administered or to the terms of such plans. Courts routinely hold that the “common

17

purpose” requirement is not met where, as here, the allegations in the complaint are consistent

18

only with the execution of a routine contract or commercial dealing. See, e.g., Gardner v. Starkist

19

Co., 418 F. Supp. 3d 443, 461 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“Simply characterizing routine commercial

20

dealing as a RICO enterprise is not enough.”); Gomez v. Guthy–Renker, LLC, No. 14-cv-01425-

21

JGB, 2015 WL 4270042, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015) (“RICO liability must be predicated on a

22

relationship more substantial than a routine contract between a service provider and its client.”).
b.

23
24

Conduct

To satisfy the “conduct” element of a Section 1962(c) claim, a plaintiff must allege facts

25

that the defendant had “some part in directing [the enterprise’s] affairs.” Walter v. Drayson, 538

26

F.3d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Simply being “a

27

part” of the enterprise or “performing services” for the enterprise does not rise to the level of

28

direction required. Id.
14

1

Here, plaintiffs have not alleged facts to raise the inference that either United or Viant
directed the affairs of the alleged scheme for RICO purposes. Allegations showing that a

3

defendant conducted its own affairs is insufficient to raise the inference that the defendant

4

conducted the affairs of an enterprise. See Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co., 942 F. Supp. 2d 915, 939

5

(N.D. Cal. 2013) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.) (holding that RICO liability “depends on showing that the

6

defendants conducted or participated in the conduct of the ‘enterprise’s affairs,’ not just their own

7

affairs”) (emphasis in the original). As discussed above, the allegations in the complaint are

8

consistent only with defendants conducting their own affairs pursuant to the contract that required

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

Viant to negotiate reimbursements on behalf of United, which plaintiffs do not allege was contrary

10

to the ERISA plans that United administered. In the absence of allegations that raise the inference

11

that either defendant performed actions to further a scheme rather than their own individual affairs

12

pursuant to the contract just described, the conduct element is not satisfied.
c.

13
14

Pattern of Racketeering Activity

A “pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of

15

which occurred after [1970] and the last of which occurred within ten years after the commission

16

of a prior act of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Racketeering activity is also referred

17

to as the “predicate acts.” Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co., 431 F.3d 353,

18

361 (9th Cir. 2005). Offenses that can constitute predicate acts for a RICO violation are listed in

19

18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).

20

As noted, plaintiffs allege that their RICO claims are predicated on wire fraud and mail

21

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, as well as “Federal Health offenses” in violation

22

of 18 U.S.C. § 24 and ERISA, 18 U.S.C. § 1027. Compl. ¶¶ 354-59.

23

The alleged “Federal Health offenses” cannot serve as predicates for a RICO claim

24

because they are not listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Plaintiffs argue that these offenses can give

25

rise to a RICO claim to the extent that they relate to the laundering of monetary instruments in

26

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Opp’n at 8-9, Docket No. 46. While money laundering is listed in

27

Section 1961(1) and can, therefore, serve as a RICO predicate offense, the complaint is devoid of

28

allegations that defendants engaged in money-laundering activities. Accordingly, in the absence
15

1

of allegations in the complaint that tie the “Federal Health offenses” in question to an offense that

2

can serve as a predicate for a RICO claim, plaintiffs’ RICO claim is subject to dismissal to the

3

extent that it is based on “Federal Health offenses.”

4

Wire fraud and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively, can

5

serve as predicate offenses. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to allege facts to raise the reasonable

6

inference that defendants committed at least two instances of either offense.

7

Wire fraud and mail fraud share the same elements: (1) that the defendant formed a scheme
to defraud; (2) used the United States wires [for wire fraud] or United States mail [for mail fraud]

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

in furtherance of the scheme; and (3) did so with a specific intent to deceive or defraud. Schreiber

10

Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1400 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

11

Alleged violations of RICO predicated on fraudulent communications, as the ones here, are

12

subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires that the plaintiff “state the time,

13

place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the

14

misrepresentation.” Id. at 1401.

15

Plaintiffs have not averred the specific facts required to raise the reasonable inference that

16

defendants committed at least two instances of mail fraud or wire fraud. The allegations in the

17

complaint do not identify the time, place, and specific content of the fraudulent communications at

18

issue, or identify the person or persons involved in such communications. Plaintiffs also do not

19

aver factual matter to raise the inference that such communications were sent over the United

20

States wires or United States mail across state lines.

21

Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the EOBs, which do not satisfy the requirements of

22

Rule 9(b), are insufficient to raise the inference that the statements therein were fraudulent.

23

Plaintiffs allege that United “made representations to the Plaintiffs and the Class in the EOB

24

letters that benefits were available and paid based on the UCR rate.” Compl. ¶ 256. However,

25

plaintiffs do not identify when United allegedly sent them these letters or what the letters stated.

26

Further, the EOB letters filed by United, which the Court has decided to consider for the purpose

27

of resolving the present motions, do not state that any amounts paid for IOP services were “based

28

on the UCR rate.” See Nguyen Decl., Ex. 4-8, Docket No. 35-2. Plaintiffs also allege that the
16

1

EOBs did not provide “any process by which the adverse benefit determinations could be

2

appealed.” Compl. ¶ 252. As discussed above, the EOBs that United filed do describe a process

3

for appealing United’s reimbursement determinations. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the EOBs did

4

not state that they were “adverse benefit determinations” as a result of Viant’s repricing. Id. ¶

5

252. Plaintiffs, however, have cited no authority showing that United was required to include in

6

the EOBs the words “adverse benefit determination” or to otherwise mention Viant’s involvement

7

in the reimbursement negotiations.
Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the verification calls that Summit Estate made to

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

United also do not satisfy Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs allege that Summit Estate contacted United to

10

verify out-of-network benefits and that United represented that the IOP benefits in question would

11

be paid “at UCR rates” and that the claims at issue “were not subject to third-party repricing by

12

Viant.” Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiffs, however, do not identify any specifics. As discussed above, plaintiffs

13

have not identified any plan provisions showing that United was required to reimburse for IOP

14

services at the UCR, or that it was prohibited from contracting with Viant to negotiate

15

reimbursements. Thus, these allegations are insufficient to raise the inference that United’s

16

statements during these calls were fraudulent.

17

Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to Viant’s correspondence also do not satisfy Rule 9(b).

18

Plaintiffs allege that Viant represented “in its correspondence” that its reimbursement amounts are

19

“based on UCR rates, plan terms, or other independent bases.” Id. ¶ 120. Again, plaintiffs do not

20

identify specifics. Plaintiffs aver that Viant falsely represented in its PAD letters to plaintiffs and

21

providers that it had authority to negotiate on patients’ behalf. Id. ¶¶ 253, 259. Without more

22

detail, these allegations are insufficient to raise the inference that Viant’s PAD letters were

23

fraudulent.
Accordingly, plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that defendants engaged in acts of mail

24
25

fraud or wire fraud that constitute a pattern of racketeering activity.
In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ RICO claim under Section 1962(c) is subject to

26
27

dismissal.

28

//
17

1
2

2.

Conspiracy under Section 1962(d)

Section 1962(d) provides, “It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of

3

the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” A defendant cannot be liable for a

4

RICO conspiracy under Section 1962(d) if the defendant is not liable under the substantive RICO

5

provisions, namely Sections 1962(a), (b), or (c). See Howard v. Am. Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741,

6

751 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate RICO existed if they do

7

not adequately plead a substantive violation of RICO.”).
In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants’ purported scheme in violation of RICO

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

was a “conspiracy.” See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 270. To the extent that plaintiffs sought to assert a claim

10

against defendants under Section 1962(d) based on these allegations, such a claim is subject to

11

dismissal because plaintiffs have failed to plead a substantive RICO violation under Section

12

1962(c), as discussed above. See Howard, 208 F.3d at 751.

13
14

3.

Standing

To establish RICO standing, a plaintiff must plead an injury to business or property that

15

was proximately caused by the alleged RICO predicate offense. Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New

16

York, 559 U.S. 1, 2 (2010) (“To establish that an injury came about by reason of a RICO violation,

17

a plaintiff must show that a predicate offense not only was a but for cause of his injury, but was

18

the proximate cause as well.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Where the

19

predicate offense is mail or wire fraud, the plaintiff must allege facts to show that “someone relied

20

on the defendant’s misrepresentations” in order to establish proximate cause. See Bridge v.

21

Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 658 (2008). This is because, “logically, a plaintiff

22

cannot even establish but-for causation if no one relied on the defendant’s alleged

23

misrepresentation.” Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Takeda

24

Pharm. Co. Ltd., 943 F.3d 1243, 1259 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Bridge, 553 U.S. at 658-59).

25

Here, plaintiffs allege that they “relied upon United’s assertion in the plan documents . . .

26

that out-of-network claims, when covered, would be paid at the UCR rate.” Compl. ¶ 352. As

27

discussed above, plaintiffs have not identified the provisions in the “plan documents” that state

28

that the IOP services at issue would be paid “at the UCR rate.” Without such identification or
18

1

explicit allegations of reliance, inference of the same is not possible. Accordingly, the complaint

2

does not raise the reasonable inference that the element of reliance is met so as to find that

3

plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by the alleged mail fraud and wire fraud. Cf. Painters,

4

943 F.3d at 1260 (holding that “it is sufficient to satisfy RICO’s proximate cause requirement that

5

[the plaintiff] alleged that prescribing physicians (also third parties, but not intervening causes)

6

relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions.”).

7

C.

Leave to Amend

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that courts “should freely give leave [to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

amend] when justice so requires.” In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 642 F.3d 685, 701 (9th Cir.

10

2011). The Court, however, need not grant leave to amend where amendment would be futile.

11

Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because it is not clear that amendment of the complaint would be futile, the Court will

12
13

grant plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to attempt to allege a cognizable theory for each of

14

the claims discussed herein.

15

IV.

16

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions to dismiss WITH LEAVE

17

TO AMEND.

Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date this order

18

is filed. Defendants may file a response to the amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the

19

date it is filed.

20

This order terminates Docket Numbers 33 and 34.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: August 26, 2020

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
19