Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV16438, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20STCV16438    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 1

20STCV16438           HOOMAN MELAMED, M.D., INC. vs BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff’s Motion to Relate Cases (Case Nos. 20STCV16438 and 22STCV01382)

TENTATIVE RULING:        Plaintiff’s Motion to Relate Cases (Case Nos. 20STCV16438 and 22STCV01382) is GRANTED.  Department 1 relates 22STCV01382 with 20STCV16438. The Court orders 22STCV01382 reassigned to Department 16 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in 22STCV01382 are hereby advanced and vacated.  Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

On March 3, 2022, Judge Laura A. Seigle issued an order finding the cases were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

In opposition, Defendant contends the motion is “fatally defective,” (Opp. at 6:10-15), citing California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(e), which provides “[t]he Notice of Related Case must be served and filed as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known.” This deadline, which is not jurisdictional, applies to the filing of a Notice of Related Case, not a motion to relate, and is therefore inapposite. Defendant also contends the motion is an untimely motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. (Opp. at 6:25-7:4.) However, Plaintiff’s motion is expressly permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) and is not constrained by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

Defendant further contends the motion “appears to be asking that this Court both relate and consolidate the matter simultaneously.” (Opp. at 6:16-24.) However, the motion acknowledges it does not seek consolidation with this motion. (Mot. at 2:10-13 (“Plaintiff seeks an order relating and assigning both cases to the Judge assigned the lowest-numbered case so that a motion to consolidate can be brought pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.350.”).) Moreover, Department 1 does not consolidate cases and does not address the merits of the arguments in favor or against consolidation.

Plaintiff’s motion to relate is timely and properly brought before Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court finds the Two Cases are Related

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

Plaintiff contends the cases are related based upon the first, second, and fourth grounds enumerated in Rule 3.300(a). While Defendant contends Plaintiff has not demonstrated the cases are related, (Opp. at 7:5-8:17), Plaintiff notes Defendant filed the initial notice of related case. (Reply at 1:2-10.) Plaintiff argues Defendant’s current opposition to relation is improper. However, Plaintiff’s reliance upon the doctrine of judicial estoppel is misplaced. (Reply at 1:13-1:21.) For judicial estoppel to apply, the court must have adopted the position previously raised by the party. (See Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 986 (“The doctrine applies when . . . (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true).”).) Judge Seigle did not relate the two cases in response to Defendant’s Notice of Related Case.

The two cases do not involve the same parties as Hooman Melamed, M.D., in his individual capacity, is not a party to both cases. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) In opposition, Defendant argues the cases do not have similar or overlapping claims. (Opp. at 8:1-6, Fogarty Decl. Ex. A-F.) Defendant cites instances where Plaintiff’s counsel has differentiated between the two cases as one seeking quantum meruit and reimbursement and the other seeking redress for retaliation. (Ibid.) As noted by Plaintiff in reply, (Reply at 2:10-3:20), these statements are not binding judicial admissions that preclude Plaintiff’s motion. (Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 360–361 (“A judicial admission is a waiver of proof of a fact by conceding its truth, and it has the effect of removing the matter from the issues. . . . the declaration or utterance must be one of fact and not a legal conclusion, contention, or argument.”).) Moreover, the statements do not demonstrate the cases are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

The cases arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) Both cases assert claims under Business and Professions Code section 17200 based upon similar conduct. In both cases, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s policy and practice is to deny claims as medically unnecessary or elective procedures in support of the Section 17200 claims. (See e.g. 20STCV16438 TAC ¶¶ 104-106; 22STCV01382 SAC ¶¶ 9, 13, 20.) While one case relies upon Defendant’s alleged retaliatory motive and the other does not, this difference is insufficient to deny relation. Both cases will require similar determinations regarding Defendant’s policies and practices as they relate to Plaintiff’s reimbursement claims, the denial thereof, and Plaintiff’s appeals. Both complaints cite Title 28, Section 1300.71 of the California Code of Regulations. (TAC ¶¶ 18-19; SAC ¶¶ 8, 20, 27, 35.) Plaintiff alleges in both cases that Defendant failed to pay the reasonable and customary value of the services rendered. (TAC ¶ 18 (“[the Plan shall remit to the provider] the payment of the reasonable and customary value for the health care services rendered . . .”); SAC ¶ 8 (“Blue Shield must pay the reasonable and customary value for those services based on criteria set forth by California law.”).)

The cases are also likely to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if they continue before different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) On October 11, 2023, Judge Upinder S. Kalra issued an order in 22STCV01382 providing “parties will meet and confer regarding modifying protective order in 20STCV16438.” As noted by Defendant, Judge Kalra also indicated “if Plaintiff’s UCL claim survives, the court might stay the Retaliation Lawsuit pending the conclusion of the Quantum Meruit Lawsuit.” (Opp. at 5:15-17; Fogarty Decl. Ex. D at 25:23-26:9.) A stay to await the outcome of a separate lawsuit will necessarily duplicate judicial resources as the stayed case is likely to require continuances, status conferences, and review of the other proceedings. Notably, the alleged conduct at issue in 22STCV01382 is alleged to be the continuation and consequence of the conduct alleged in 20STCV16438. Furthermore, judicial efficiency is promoted by a single judicial officer overseeing the entirety of the dispute between the parties.

The Court finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300 and the motion is GRANTED.