Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV05027, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05027    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant Inland Empire Health Plan’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint

Demurrer

            Defendant Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) demurs to both causes of action alleged in the second amended complaint by plaintiffs Markeisha Cassidy-Dawson and minor Melrose D.-F. 

            Plaintiffs allege two causes of action: (1) violation of Government Code section 11135, and (2) violation of the California Constitution’s right to substantive due process.  On January 24, 2024, the court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to these causes of action.  The court did so for two reasons.  First, as a matter of substantive law, these causes of action do not permit recovery of monetary damages.  Second, plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts for injunctive relief because they allege they reside in Orange County.  IEHP only administers healthcare in the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino.  (See Allied Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc. v. Inland Empire Health Plan (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 794, 798.)  Speculation that plaintiffs might become eligible for healthcare through IEHP in the future does not present a basis for injunctive or other equitable relief.

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint adequately cured the latter defect.  Plaintiffs added the following relevant allegations: “Plaintiffs are still Medi-Cal beneficiaries and cannot move to the Inland Empire because IEHP will be the managing office of their benefits.  Plaintiffs believe, and therefore allege that IEHP still engages in the same policies and practices that enable ongoing discrimination towards black women as Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs still have temporary housing and still utilize Ms. Dawson’s late mother’s home as a stable permanent address, Ms. Dawson is currently a Doctoral student attending a University located in the Inland Empire, and therefore eligible for benefits under IEHP.  The plaintiffs’ family and support system reside in the Inland Empire, and the plaintiffs desire to relocate to the Inland Empire and therefore are in immediate harm of being discriminated against by IEHP.”  (SAC, ¶ 50.)

Plaintiffs now allege more than speculation that they will become eligible for IEHP membership in the future.  The second amended complaint alleges plaintiffs “desire to” move to one of the Counties where IEHP operates, but “cannot” do so because they fear future discrimination by IEHP.  At the pleadings stage, this allegation sufficiently states a present and likely future controversy between the parties.  (See Stocks v. City of Irvine (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 520, 532 [holding that nonresidents of city could challenge city’s policies that excluded low-income people].)    

Motion to Strike

            Defendant Inland Empire Health Plan moves to strike 11 portions of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.  Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities is defective.  “The memorandum must contain… arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b).)  “A trial court may decline to consider an argument that does not comply with rule 3.1113 of the California Rules of Court.”  (Nationwide Ins. Co. of America v. Tipton (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1355, 1365.) 

            Defendant’s memorandum states the legal standard for motions to strike in general (Memo, pp. 1-2) and argues the second amended complaint fails to allege a proper basis for recovering punitive damages (id., pp. 3-5).  But plaintiffs’ second amended complaint does not allege “oppression, fraud, or malice” under Civil Code section 3294(a).  It does not pray for punitive damages.  Those arguments are irrelevant.  Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities makes no arguments pertinent to the portions it seeks to strike.  The court therefore will deny the motion.    

Disposition

            Defendant Inland Empire Health Plan’s demurrer is overruled.  Defendant’s motion to strike is denied.  Defendant shall answer plaintiffs’ second amended complaint within 20 days.