Judge: Erick L. Larsh, Case: 2020-01170084, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Defendant The Medical Cost Savings Solution, Ltd’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c [authorizing summary judgment]; Day v. Alta Bates Medical Center (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 243, 248 [quantum meruit elements].)

Moving defendant has not met its initial burden of presenting evidence sufficient to show that plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of its quantum meruit claims. First, while moving party presents evidence that it did not request plaintiff to provide any services, a quantum meruit claim can arise where the services are provided pursuant to an implied agreement, as well as an express one. (Ochs v. PacifiCare (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 794 [“To recover on a claim for the reasonable value of services under a quantum meruit theory, a plaintiff must establish both that he or she was acting pursuant to either an express or implied request for services from the defendant and that the services rendered were intended to and did benefit the defendant”].)

Second, moving defendant has not provided evidence that it did not receive any benefit from the services provided by plaintiff; in fact, moving defendant’s own evidence is to the contrary, as moving defendant is compensated for negotiating discounts and bill reductions for services rendered to co-defendant Liberty HealthShare’s members. (Ex. B to Mead Decl., § I, and attached “Pricing and Performance” addendum at §§ 4(a), 5(b), 6(a), 9(b), 9(c), 10, 12, and “Compensation and Fees” provision; see also Preis v. American Indemnity Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 752, 760 [moving party’s own evidence can create triable issues].)

Finally, even if moving party had met its initial burden, plaintiff has provided evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact as to the scope of the agency relationship between moving party and co-defendant Liberty HealthShare. (Moving Party Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 2, 4; Responding Party Separate Statement,

response to Fact Nos. 2 and 4, and Additional Fact Nos. 2-5.)

Moving defendant’s request for judicial notice in support of the Reply is DENIED. (Evid. Code, § 453, subd. (a) [request for judicial notice must give “each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request”].)

Plaintiff shall give notice.