Bay Area Surgical Group, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company et al
Filing
18
ORDER Granting Motions to Dismiss with leave to amend and Denying Motion to Strike as moot. The April 21, 2011 motion hearing and case management conference are vacated. Signed by Judge Koh on 4/91/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
BAY AREA SURGICAL GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE & HEALTH
INSUR. CO., ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 10-CV-05812-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
AS MOOT
17
Plaintiff Bay Area Surgical Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings the instant action against
18
Defendants Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company (“Anthem”), Health Care
19
Service Corporation Illinois State PAC, NFP, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (collectively
20
“Defendants”). In brief, Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to a written assignment agreement, it is
21
entitled to receive full payment from Defendants for a surgical procedure it performed on a patient
22
as the patient’s assignee. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
23
upon which relief may be granted. Defendant Anthem also moves to strike portions of the
24
complaint. Although Plaintiff’s oppositions were due no later than March 31, 2011, as of the date
25
of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any oppositions. The Court deems these motions appropriate
26
for resolution without oral argument, and vacates the April 21, 2011 motion hearing and case
27
management conference. See Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). For the reasons explained below, Defendants’
28
1
Case No.: 10-CV-05812-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE
1
motions to dismiss are GRANTED with leave to amend. Defendant Anthem’s motion to strike is
2
DENIED as moot.
3
4
I. BACKGROUND
In the Complaint, Plaintiff describes itself as an ambulatory surgery center that provides
5
health care services at its facility in Santa Clara, California. See Compl. ¶ 9. On January 14, 2009,
6
a patient of Plaintiff underwent surgery. Plaintiff alleges that the patient was insured by a “health
7
benefits agreement” with Defendants. Id. at ¶ 11. Under that agreement, Defendants promised to
8
pay for certain costs of health care services incurred by the patient. Id.
9
Plaintiff alleges that, on January 14, 2009, the patient executed an “Assignment of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Benefits” to Plaintiff, which authorized Plaintiff, as the patient’s assignee, to bill the insurance
11
carrier (Defendants) directly. Pursuant to the assignment agreement, Plaintiff alleges it submitted a
12
timely claim for payment. Id. at ¶ 13. However, according to Plaintiff, Defendants have not made
13
the full payment of the outstanding charges.
14
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings suit for three California state law claims: (1)
15
breach of contract; (2) implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) common counts.
16
Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
17
motion to strike portions of the complaint.
18
19
II. ANALYSIS
Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is
20
“proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to
21
support a cognizable legal theory.” Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 606 F.3d 658,
22
664 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). In considering
23
whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court must accept as true all of the factual
24
allegations contained in the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). While a
25
complaint need not allege detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter,
26
accepted as true, to “‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
27
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). If the court concludes that the
28
2
Case No.: 10-CV-05812-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE
1
complaint should be dismissed, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. “[A] district
2
court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it
3
determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v.
4
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th
5
Cir. 1995)).
6
Defendants move to dismiss on the ground that each of Plaintiff’s state law causes of action
is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as
8
amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Section 1144(a) of ERISA provides that ERISA provisions
9
“supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
7
benefit plan . . . .” See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). The provisions of ERISA “apply to any employee
11
benefit plan if it is established or maintained--(1) by any employer engaged in commerce or in any
12
industry or activity affecting commerce; or (2) by any employee organization or organizations
13
representing employees engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce; or
14
(3) by both.” See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a).
15
Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover payment as the assignee of one of its patients, a patient
16
covered by a health insurance policy with Defendants. Although Plaintiff did not attach a copy of
17
the health insurance agreement to the Complaint, Defendants submit what they contend is the
18
agreement referenced in the Complaint. See Exh. C to Notice of Removal (“Agreement”). The
19
Court will consider the Agreement as incorporated by reference into the Complaint. See United
20
States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The doctrine of incorporation by reference
21
may apply, for example, when a plaintiff’s claim about insurance coverage is based on the contents
22
of a coverage plan.”). The Court finds that the Agreement is an “employee benefit plan” as defined
23
in Section 1003(a). See, e.g., Agreement at 17 (referencing rights under ERISA for claim of
24
benefits and appeals). As the Agreement is covered by ERISA, Plaintiff’s three state law claims
25
based on violation of the Agreement are preempted. See Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nal League of
26
Postmasters, 497 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that “ERISA preempts the state claims
27
of a provider suing as an assignee of the beneficiary’s rights to benefits under an ERISA plan”);
28
3
Case No.: 10-CV-05812-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE
1
see also The Meadows v. Employers Health Ins., 47 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming
2
“the principle that ERISA preempts the state claims of a provider suing as an assignee of a
3
beneficiary’s rights to benefits under an ERISA plan”).1
III. CONCLUSION
4
5
Accordingly, for good cause shown:
6
(1) the motions to dismiss are GRANTED with leave to amend;
7
(2) the motion to strike portions of the complaint is DENIED as moot;
8
(3) any amended pleading must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this
Order. Failure to timely amend the complaint will result in dismissal with prejudice;
9
and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
(4) the April 21, 2011 motion hearing and case management conference are VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: April 19, 2011
15
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
The Court does not reach Defendants’ other grounds for dismissal.
4
Case No.: 10-CV-05812-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?