Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SCRIPPS HEALTH, et al v. BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF

November 30, 2010

SCRIPPS HEALTH, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC., ET AL., [DOCKET NO. 5] DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

This case comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to transfer venue. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the reasons set out below, the Court denies the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND On July 25, 2008, a Patient presented at the emergency room at Scripps Memorial Hospital Chula Vista ("Scripps"). The Patient represented that she was insured through Defendant Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. ("BCBS"). Scripps verified with a BCBS representative that the Patient was eligible for coverage, and the BCBS representative provided pre-certification for medical services to be provided to the Patient. Scripps admitted the Patient on July 25, 2008, with the understanding that it would be paid for services rendered. Scripps alleges that it provided "extensive, life-saving / / health care services to the Patient from July 25, 2008 through August 25, 2008, resulting in total billed charges of over $500,000." (Compl. ¶ 28.)

Pursuant to the BlueCard program,*fn1 Scripps filed its claim for reimbursement with the local Blue Cross entity, Blue Cross of California ("BCC"). BCBS denied the claim initially. Scripps appealed that denial, and a Blue Cross representative informed Scripps that the claim would be paid at the discounted rate of $250,083.95. BCBS did not pay the claim, however, asserting that the services provided were excluded according to the BCBS policy. Scripps again appealed the denial of the claim, but BCBS refused to pay. BCBS thereafter agreed to pay for emergency services at the discounted rate, but refused to acknowledge most of the services as emergent.

On August 25, 2010, Scripps and South Bay Surgical Associates Medical Group, Inc. filed a Complaint in San Diego Superior Court against BCBS. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract and declaratory relief. Defendant removed Plaintiffs' Complaint to this Court on September 29, 2010, and promptly filed the present motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

II.

DISCUSSION Defendant moves to transfer the present case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This statute provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The moving party bears the burden of establishing these factors weigh in favor of transfer. Shropshire v. Fred Rappoport Co., 294 F.Supp.2d 1085, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Decker Coal

v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)); Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n

v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)). / / / / / /

A. Might This Action Have Been Filed in the Northern District?

As stated in the statute, the first inquiry for the Court is whether this action could have been filed in the District of Kansas. Defendant invoked this Court's diversity jurisdiction in its notice of removal, therefore 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) controls the determination of venue in this case.

Section 1391(a) provides:

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.