Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV02659, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02659    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 54

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 21, 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.