Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV42672, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42672    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: 1

20STCV42672 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA vs DISCOVERY RADIOLOGY PHYSICIANS

Defendants’ Motion to Relate Cases

TENTATIVE RULING:  Defendants’ Motion to Relate Four Lawsuits Filed by Allstate Regarding Alleged Corporate Practice of Medicine by Imaging Centers is DENIED.  Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice. 

Background of 20STCV42672 People v. Discovery Radiology Physicians

On November 5, 2020, People of the State of California, ex rel., Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, and Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company filed 20STCV42672 against Discovery Radiology Physicians, P.C., William Ira Feske, M.D., Amjad Safvi, M.D., and Sattar Mirtabatabaee aka Sattar Mir for violation of the California Unfair Competition Act.

On March 9, 2021, Amjad Safvi, M.D. filed a cross-complaint against Discovery Radiology Physicians and Mir for indemnity.

On May 17, 2021, Judge William F. Fahey issued an order finding 20STCV45151 People v. OneSource Medical Diagnostics and 20STCV42672 related pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300 and provisionally consolidated the two actions.

On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) violation of California Insurance Code section 1871.7; and (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The SAC alleges Mir, an “unlicensed layperson,” improperly owned and operated a professional medical corporation, Discovery Radiology Physicians, P.C. The complaint alleges Defendants operated a “MRI brokering and patient referral scam” rather than taking and interpreting the MRIs themselves, (SAC ¶ 67), and improperly obtained insurance benefits at a substantial markup.

On October 20, 2021, the court entered Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss William Ira Feske, M.D. and Amjad Safvi, M.D. The court entered Safvi’s request to dismiss the cross-complaint on October 25, 2021.

On January 23, 2024, Department 1 issued an order after Judge Fahey accepted a peremptory challenge in 20STCV45151 providing: “[t]his Court finds that interest of justice is not served by reassigning case number 20STCV42672 to a new Judicial Officer. Therefore, this Court determines that cases 20STCV45151 and 20STCV42672 should no longer be related.” The cases were further reassigned after the newly assigned judicial officers accepted additional peremptory challenges.

On April 17, 2024, Judge Wendy Chang issued an order finding 20STCV42672 and 20STCV45151 were related and declined to relate 20STCV42672 and 22STCV11349 People v. Benji and 23STCV19039 People v. Encino Open MRI.

This case is currently pending in Department 36 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Background of 20STCV45151 People v. OneSource Medical Diagnostics

On November 24, 2020, People of the State of California, ex rel., Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company, and Allstate New Jersey Property & Casualty Insurance filed 20STCV45151 against OneSource Medical Diagnostics, LLC, Sattar Mirtabatabaee aka Sattar Mir, 1st Source Capital, LLC, Safvi Medical Corporation, Amjad Safvi, M.D., Expert MRI, P.C., Adil R. Mazhar, M.D., and Sana U. Khan, M.D.

On July 7, 2021, Expert MRI, P.C., Sana Khan, M.D. and Adil Mazhar, M.D. filed their First Amended Cross-Complaint against Key Health Medical Solutions, Inc. asserting causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) equitable indemnity; and (5) declaratory relief. The Expert MRI FACC alleges Key Health purchased receivables from Expert MRI and failed to accurately prepare patient invoices.

On July 8, 2021, OneSource Medical Diagnostics, Sattar Mirtabatabaee, and 1st Source Capital filed their First Amended Cross-Complaint against Key Health Medical Solutions, Inc. asserting causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) express indemnity; (4) equitable indemnity; and (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The OneSource FACC also alleges Key Health failed to accurately prepare patient invoices.

On August 11, 2021, Key Health filed a cross-complaint against Expert MRI, P.C., Sana Khan, M.D. and Adil Mazhar, M.D. for declaratory relief and a separate cross-complaint against OneSource Medical Diagnostics, Sattar Mirtabatabaee, and 1st Source Capital for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) contractual indemnity; (4) accounting; (5) money had and received; and (6) declaratory relief.

On March 26, 2024, the court entered the parties’ stipulation to file the Second Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) violation of California Insurance Code section 1871.7; and (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The SAC alleges Mir formed OneSource “for the purpose of preparing and presenting false and fraudulent claims to insurance companies.” (SAC ¶ 56.)

This case is currently pending in Department 36 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Background of 22STCV11349 People v. Benji

On April 4, 2022, People of the State of California, ex rel., Allstate Insurance Company filed 22STCV11349 against Jaklin Benji, Matthew Rashidi, Michael Rashidi, Precise MRI Corp. dba Precise Imaging, Stuart E. Strausberg, D.O., Ranon Udkoff, M.D., and  Yokhevet, LLC. The First Amended Complaint, filed November 9, 2023, asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of California Insurance Code Section 1871.7; and (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. This FAC alleges Precise MRI operated without the proper licensing and utilized two different processes to provide unlicensed MRI services, including contracting with Defendant Udkoff to interpret MRIs. The FAC alleges Defendants Benji and Rashidi created Defendant Yokhevet to purchase and hold real property for Precise MRI to use in its alleged fraud scheme. Defendants further inflated their billings to the insurance companies. The FAC identifies 5,416 claims that “contain multiple material misrepresentations and concealment of material information.” (FAC ¶ 101.)

On April 29, 2024, Judge Randolph M. Hammock issued an order finding 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 were not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

This case is currently pending in Department 49 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with the next hearing set for July 3, 2024.

Background of 23STCV19039 People v. Encino Open MRI

On August 9, 2023, People of the State of California, ex rel., Allstate Insurance Company filed 23STCV19039 against Encino Open MRI, Inc., Burbank Imaging & Open MRI, Inc., LA MRI Center, Inc., Total MRI, LLC d/b/a Santa Clarita MRI, Southern California Medical Imaging & Open MRI, Inc., d/b/a Socal Imaging And Open MRI, SoCal MRI Centers LLC, d/b/a Montclair Open MRI, Akhtar Golbahar, Harry Golbahar, Nick Golbahar, Bobak Kardan, Stanton Kremsky, M.D., Alexander Grimm, M.D., and Ranon Udkoff, M.D. The complaint alleges Defendants Harry Golbahar, Akhtar Golbahar, Nick Golbahar, and Bobak Kardan operated six radiology facilities without the proper licenses and submitted 1,502 false claims to Allstate. Defendants allegedly contracted with Defendants Udkoff and Kremsky to “interpret . . . lay-rendered medical imaging scans.” (Compl. ¶ 103.)

This case is currently pending in Department 58 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Motion

On Defendants Sattar “Mir” Mirtabatabaee, OneSource Medical Diagnostics, 1st Source Capital, Jaklin Benji, Mathew Rashidi, Michael Rashidi, Precise MRI Corp., Yokhevet, LA MRI Center, Inc., Burbank Imaging & Open MRI, Inc., Total MRI, LLC, Akhtar Golbahar, and Nicky Golbahar filed the instant motion seeking to relate 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 with previously related cases 20STCV42672 and 20STCV45151.

Opposition

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue the two related cases should remain related, but 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 are not related to either each other or the previously related cases.

Reply

In reply, Defendants reiterate their contentions that the cases are related.

The Court does not consider Defendants’ improper reply declarations. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (“The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.”); Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1089 (“New evidence is generally not permitted with reply papers.”).) The declarations are not, as Defendants contend in reply, supplemental evidence. (Reply at 4 n.3.) Rather, they are a belated attempt to correct evidentiary deficiencies of their own making. (Jay, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 1538 (noting proper supplemental evidence should “only fill[] gaps in the evidence created by the limited partners' opposition.”).)

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of the pleadings and various minute orders entered in the cases at issue. The request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

Evidentiary Objections

May 10, 2024 Declaration of Kohli - Objections Nos. 3 and 4 are SUSTAINED and Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 5 are OVERRULED.

May 14, 2024 Declaration of Kohli – the objection to the entirety of the May 14, 2024 declaration is SUSTAINED. The declaration is untimely. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.) The Court shall not consider the untimely supplemental declaration filed on May 14, 2024. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1300(d).)

Declaration of Sokolove – both objections are SUSTAINED.

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Court Declines to Relate  22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 with Each Other or Either 20STCV42672 or 20STCV45151

As noted above, Judge Chang issued an order declining to relate 20STCV42672 with 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 on April 17, 2024 and Judge Hammock issued an order declining to relate 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 on April 29, 2024. Accordingly, the motion is properly brought in Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)  

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).) Defendants’ motion contends the cases are related based upon the first, second, and fourth grounds enumerated in Rule 3.300.

As seen above, the cases do not involve the same parties. Each case involves numerous defendants that are not parties to the other cases, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1)), and Defendants’ motion concedes “the parties across all four actions are not identical.” (Mot. at 7:4.) While the Plaintiffs in each case assert the same enumerated causes of action under the same statues, they do not involve the same or substantially similar claims. (Ibid.) Additionally, there are numerous claims in 20STCV45151, brought via cross-complaints, that are not at issue in either 22STCV11349 or 23STCV19039.

The two unrelated cases, 22STCV11349 or 23STCV19039, do not 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 as each other, or the previously related cases: 20STCV42672 or 20STCV45151. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) Defendants contend the cases involve the same “theory of liability,” the same questions of law, and substantially the same questions of fact. (Mot. at 5:3-7:2.) Defendants also note they followed similar business models.

However, each case arises out of the Defendants’ alleged operation of separate, unlawful MRI facilities and each case is based upon the submission of different claims to Allstate. While 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 both name Ranon Udkoff, M.D. as a physician who interpreted MRIs for the Defendants, Udkoff’s involvement is not sufficient to relate the two cases. As noted by Plaintiff, Udkoff is alleged to have “contracted with different entities and persons to provide radiological services in each case, he interpreted and prepared different reports on different company letterheads in each case, he was paid by different actors for the services he rendered in each case, and the claims at issue in which he was involved are separate and distinct in each case.” (Opp. at 7:3-6.) The limited similarities between the cases, primarily arising from Defendants’ alleged business model, do not render the cases related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(2), nor do shared general legal theories.

Finally, Defendants argue the cases will require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 remain unrelated because “different judges will be making duplicative determinations regarding the same documents, with the same parties, hearing duplicative evidence, and making duplicative discovery, evidentiary, dispositive and motion in limine rulings about the same issues in simultaneous and concurrent cases.” (Mot. at 8:18-9:9.) Defendants note there is a similar issue regarding patient privacy in each case. (Ibid.) However, similar pretrial motions addressed to similarly alleged pleadings are not sufficient to demonstrate a substantial duplication of judicial resources. Each case will primarily involve the application of the law to the facts specific to each plaintiff, each defendant, and each allegedly fraudulent insurance claim at issue. The individual issues of law and fact predominate and the cases are not likely to result in a substantial duplication of judicial resources within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(4).

The Court declines to relate 22STCV11349 and 23STCV19039 with each other or either of the previously related 20STCV42672 or 20STCV45151 and the motion is DENIED.