United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT RE: DKT. NO. 53
H. KOH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
San Jose Neurospine (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company (“CHLIC”)
for several state law causes of action. Before the Court is
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”), which seeks to add Citrix
Systems, Inc. (“Citrix”) as a defendant. ECF No.
53. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution
without oral argument and hereby VACATES the motion hearing
set for April 13, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. Having considered the
submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record
in this case, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a SAC.
is a medical service provider with its principal place of
business in Campbell, California. ECF No. 15 (First Amended
Complaint, or “FAC”), at ¶ 1. On August 30,
2015, Plaintiff provided medical care to “Patient
‘A.M., '” a patient who is a participant in a
self-funded employee health plan whose claims are
administered by Defendant CHLIC, an insurance company with
its principle place of business in Connecticut. See
FAC ¶ 3; ECF No. 19-1. Plaintiff states that it provided
$125, 000.00 worth of medical services to Patient A.M., but
“Cigna has reimbursed [Plaintiff] for $28, 570.00 of
the total amount, leaving an unpaid balance of $96,
430.000.” FAC ¶¶ 15-18, 36-40.
29, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit against CHLIC in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County. ECF No. 1-2. Plaintiff alleged
that Plaintiff “called the Defendant at their
designated telephone number to verify covered health
benefits” prior to rendering medical care to Patient
A.M. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff stated that, in
providing medical care benefits to Patient A.M., Plaintiff
relied on the reimbursement information that CHLIC provided
to Plaintiff over the telephone. Id. ¶ 27.
Plaintiff alleged that CHLIC's failure to reimburse
Plaintiff for the full amount of medical care provided to
Patient A.M. violated implied contracts that CHLIC made with
Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 33.
on these factual allegations, Plaintiff asserted eight state
law causes of action against CHLIC, including breach of
California Health and Safety Code § 1371.4; breach of
implied contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; negligent misrepresentation; unjust
enrichment; unfair business practices; quantum meruit; and
recovery of payment for services rendered. Id.
August 31, 2016, CHLIC answered Plaintiff's Complaint in
state court. See ECF No. 1-3. On September 1, 2016,
CHLIC timely removed the case to this Court on the basis of
federal subject matter jurisdiction and diversity
jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”), at
1-2. On September 1, 2016, CHLIC answered the removed
Complaint. See ECF No. 1.
September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint. See FAC. Plaintiff's FAC added Cigna
Health of California (“CHC”), a California
corporation, as a defendant. Id. at ¶¶
1-4. Plaintiff's FAC alleged substantially the same facts
as Plaintiff's state court Complaint. See generally
Id . The FAC added only that CHC “is a California
corporation with its principal place of business in the
county of Los Angeles, California”; that CHC
“operate[s] as a health care service plan pursuant to
the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975”;
and that “these two Cigna entities coordinate their
efforts, utilize the same employees and assets, have actual
or ostensible authority to, and do in fact, act through one
another and otherwise function as a unified whole.”
Id. ¶¶ 2-4. Plaintiff's FAC brought
the same eight causes of action as Plaintiff's state
court Complaint against CHLIC, but alleged these eight claims
against both CHC and CHLIC without adding any facts about
CHC's role in the causes of action. See Id . at
September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this
case to California Superior Court. ECF No. 13.
Plaintiff's motion to remand argued that ERISA did not
completely preempt Plaintiff's state law claim, and thus
federal question jurisdiction did not exist. Id. at
1-8. Plaintiff's motion to remand also asserted that,
because CHC was a citizen of California, complete diversity
did not exist. Id. at 8.
October 13, 2016, Defendants CHC and CHLIC filed a response
in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to remand, which
argued that CHC was joined as a “sham defendant”
in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction. See ECF
No. 19. Defendants also argued that federal question
jurisdiction existed because Plaintiff's state law causes
of action were completely preempted by ERISA. Id. On
October 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its
motion to remand. ECF No. 21.
October 13, 2016, CHLIC answered the FAC. ECF No. 18.
October 20, 2016, CHC moved to dismiss the FAC's claims
against CHC. ECF No. 22. On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed
an opposition. ECF No. 23, at 5. On ...