Hospitals provided emergency medical services to members of the county’s health plan, which is licensed and regulated by the state Department of Managed Health Care under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act, Health & Saf. Code 1340. The county reimbursed the Hospitals for $28,500 of a claimed $144,000. The Hospitals sued, alleging breach of an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract. The trial court rejected the county’s argument that it is immune from the Hospitals’ suit under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code 810).
The court of appeal reversed. The county is immune from common law claims under the Government Claims Act and the Hospitals did not state a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The county does not contest its obligation to reimburse the Hospitals for the reasonable and customary value of the services; the issue is what remedies may be pursued against the county when the reasonableness of the reimbursement is disputed. The Knox-Keene Act provides alternative mechanisms to challenge the amount of emergency medical services reimbursements. A health care service plan has greater remedies against a private health care service plan than it does against a public entity health care service plan, a result driven by the Legislature broadly immunizing public entities from common law claims and electing not to abrogate that immunity in this context.
Effective August 26, 2022 California Northern District Courthouses do not require masking for entry to the buildings. Masking in courtrooms and chambers will remain at the
discretion of each judge. Before coming to the courthouse, all individuals must review the pre-screening questionnaire and notice. See
notice, list of upcoming hearings held by video, and Zoom guidance for attorneys and other hearing participants. The
Court is currently experiencing a judicial emergency.COURT OPERATIONS AND COURTHOUSE SAFETY PROTOCOLS
Attorneys: see
information on “hybrid” in-court criminal proceedings incorporating Zoom.PRESS AND PUBLIC ACCESS; INFORMATION ON OBSERVING COURT PROCEEDINGS HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE
Consenting to a Magistrate Judge
Your case may be resolved more quickly if you consent to a magistrate judge.
Quick Links
More Quick Links
Cases of Interest
This is a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) involving various defendants such as Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram LLC, Snap, Inc., TikTok, Inc., ByteDance, Inc., YouTube LLC, Google LLC, and Alphabet Inc. Plaintiffs have alleged that the
defendants’ social media platforms are defective because they are designed to maximize screen time, which can encourage addictive behavior in adolescents. As alleged, this conduct results in various emotional and physical harms, including death. Professional golfers allege that the PGA acted an unlawful monopoly in suspending them for playing for LIV,
Inc. They seek injunctive relief through a temporary restraining order that would permit them to compete in the FedEx Cup Playoffs. Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, former executive of health technology corporation Theranos, was charged along with Elizabeth Holmes with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The charges stem from Defendants’ allegedly deceptive representations about their company and its medical testing technology. Defendants are to be tried separately; Ms. Holmes’ trial concluded in January 2022. Elizabeth A. Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, former executives of health technology corporation
Theranos, are charged with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The charges stem from Defendants’ allegedly deceptive representations about their company and its medical testing technology.In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3047)
Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc.
USA v. Balwani
USA v. Holmes, et al.
MDL case involving the role of McKinsey & Co., Inc., in providing advice to opioid manufacturers in the sale of prescription opioid drugs. Plaintiffs are cities, counties, tribal governments, and other entities
alleging various claims including public nuisance, negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of consumer protection statutes, and federal RICO claims. Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc. brings this action against defendant Apple Inc., alleging violations of antitrust laws through its Apple App Store policies on iOS devices. Apple counterclaims that
Epic Games has breached its developer agreements and App Store guidelines by introducing a direct pay option on iOS devices in Epic Games’ videogame Fortnite. Class action by state prisoners alleging inadequate health care and overcrowdingIn re: McKinsey & Company, Inc., National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation (MDL No. 2996)
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Plata/Coleman v. Newsom
USA v. Funez Osorto, 19-cr-00381-CRB-4
(Compassionate Release Waiver)
Court rejects a plea agreement containing a modified waiver of compassionate release, holding that the waiver is contrary to Congressional intent.
Plaintiffs, civil immigration detainees, filed a Class Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against Defendant, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
challenging plaintiffs' conditions of confinement in light of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Multidistrict litigation grouping cases alleging, in part, that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products to minors, that JLI’s marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, and
that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of interim final rule providing that noncitizens who transit through another country prior to reaching the southern border of the United
States are ineligible for asylum hereZepeda Rivas, et al. v. Jennings, et al.
In re: PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company
In re: Juul Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. William P. Barr, et al.