The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending are cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff Dameron Hospital Association ("Dameron")'s complaint. A tentative ruling was filed on September 10, 2012, granting summary judgment sua sponte in favor of Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") since certain language contained in the relevant Conditions of Admission forms did not assign a patient's automobile insurance benefits as Dameron argued. (ECF No. 72.) Both parties filed responses to the tentative ruling. (ECF Nos. 74-75, 77.) The September 10, 2012 tentative ruling is not adopted; instead, the following order issues.
Dameron alleges in its Complaint that it provided emergency medical treatment to three individuals who were involved in automobile accidents and had automobile insurance coverage through State Farm.
Dameron alleges each individual assigned his or her automobile insurance benefits to Dameron as a condition of admission; Dameron notified State Farm of the assignments; and State Farm refused to pay Dameron. Dameron seeks money damages from State Farm in the amount of $44,714 plus interest and declaratory relief concerning State Farm's alleged failure to honor the assignments of benefits. Dameron also seeks an injunction against State Farm under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., concerning State Farm's failure to honor the assignments.
Dameron seeks partial summary judgment on its failure to honor assignments claim. State Farm seeks summary judgment on both of Dameron's claims, arguing, inter alia, the three automobile insurance policies at issue expressly prohibit the insureds from assigning their benefits without State Farm's written consent, and State Farm did not provide written consent to the purported assignments.
When deciding cross-motions for summary judgment, each motion is evaluated on its own merits, "taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration." B.F. Goodrich Co. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 245 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 2001); Bryan v. McPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating "all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party").
Concerning Plaintiff's motion, as the party who "bear[s] the burden of proof at trial, 'it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.'" C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)). "In such a case, [Plaintiff] has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case." Id. (citation omitted). "Once [Plaintiff] comes forward with sufficient evidence, 'the burden then moves to [Defendant], who must present significant probative evidence tending to support its claim or defense.'" Id. (quoting Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991)).
When the defendant is the moving party and is seeking summary judgment on one or more of a plaintiff's claims, the defendant has both the initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on [the motion]. In order to carry its burden of production, the [defendant] must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the [plaintiff's] claim . . . or show that the [plaintiff] does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.
In order to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion on the motion, the [defendant] must persuade the court that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
III. UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
A. The Patient Accounts and Corresponding Automobile Insurance Coverage at Issue This case concerns the following Dameron patient accounts and corresponding State Farm policy numbers: Michael G., Dameron account number *****0549 ($4,764.00), State Farm policy number 1147-196-55 ("Insured One"); Irma P., Dameron account number *****6610 ($37,768.39), State Farm policy number 1843-27S-05A ("Insured Two"); and Dep N., Dameron account number *****5185 ($2,181.46), State Farm policy number 112 9678-C25-55B ("Insured Three," and collectively, "Insureds"). (State Farm's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 24 ("State Farm's SUF") # 17-18, 29-30 & 45-46; Dameron's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of its Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 30-1 ("Dameron's SUF") # 3.)
"Insured One . . . was involved in an automobile accident on April 29, 2009" and had "uninsured motorist coverage of $50,000/$100,000" on that date. (State Farm's SUF # 17-18.) Insured One "was taken by ambulance . . . to Dameron." Id. # 21."[He] was diagnosed with a concussion . . . [and] Dameron noted that [he] had 'mild intoxication clinically.'" (State Farm's Statement of Additional Facts in Support of Opp'n to Dameron's Mot. for Summ. J. ("State Farm's Add'l Facts") # 17-18.) "On April 15, 2010, State Farm settled Insured One's uninsured motorist claim for $25,000, inclusive of any and all liens[,]" and "issued the settlement draft of $25,000 [on the same day], made payable to Insured One and his attorney . . . ." (State Farm's SUF # 27-28.) "Insured Two . . . was involved in an automobile accident on August 6, 2008" and had "uninsured motorist coverage of $30,000/$60,000." Id. # 29-30. Insured Two was taken by ambulance to Dameron, where she "was diagnosed as follows: 'Head injury with concussion unknown loss of consciousness (unknown LOC), ADDITIONAL: Cervical strain (whiplash), Hand ...