Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV02072, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02072 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: 54
Superior
Court of California County of
Los Angeles |
|||
University of Southern California on
behalf of its Keck Hospital of USC and on behalf of its USC Kenneth Norris
Jr. Cancer Hospital, |
Plaintiff, |
Case No.: |
22STCV02072 |
vs. |
|
Tentative Ruling |
|
Local Initiative Health Authority for
Los Angeles County dba L.A. Care Health Plan, |
Defendant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: May 18, 2023
Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Moving Party: Defendant Local Initiative Health
Authority for Los Angeles County dba L.A. Care Health Plan
Responding Party: Plaintiff University of Southern
California on behalf of its Keck Hospital of USC and on behalf of its USC
Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital
T/R: DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS CONTINUED TO A DATE TO BE SET AT THE MAY 18,
2023 HEARING.
DEFENDANT to notice.
If
the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom
at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with
notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the
day of the hearing.
The Court considers the moving
papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff University of Southern
California on behalf of its Keck Hospital of USC and on behalf of its USC
Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital
filed
a complaint against Defendant
Local Initiative Health Authority for Los Angeles County dba L.A. Care Health
Plan, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of implied in law contract; (2)
breach of implied in fact contract; and (3) quantum meruit.
Plaintiff
alleges Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value of medical
services provided to Defendant’s health plan enrollees.
ANALYSIS
A defendant may move for judgment on the
pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against that defendant.” (CCP § §§ 438(b)(1) and
(c)(1)(B)(ii).) The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall
appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the
court is required to take judicial notice. (CCP § 438(d).)
Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998)
67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)
Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on
the ground that the complaint is barred by government immunity. Defendant
asserts that as a government entity, it cannot be sued for common law causes of
action.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal recently
considered an action with virtually identical facts, in County of Santa
Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018. The trial court, ruling
on the County health care plan’s demurrer, found that the County was not
immune. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Government Tort Claims
Act barred the claims for quantum meruit and breach of implied contract, the
claims were not subject to the mandatory duty exception of Gov. Code § 815.6,
and the Knox-Keene Act did not create a cause of action for breach of implied
contract. The California Supreme Court granted review and held oral argument on
May 10, 2023.
As the California Supreme Court is considering an
action with similar facts and issues of law and will issue its opinion in a
matter of weeks, the Court defers ruling on this motion until the Supreme Court
rules. The Court will CONTINUE the motion to a date set at the May 18, 2023
hearing.