Stanford Health Care v. Trustmark Services Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 STANFORD HEALTH CARE, 10 Case No. 22-cv-03946-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING THIRD TRUSTMARK SERVICES COMPANY, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 On March 31, 2023, Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint were 17 granted. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit were both dismissed with 18 prejudice. Its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), CAL. BUS. & PROD. 19 CODE § 17200 et seq., was also dismissed, but with leave to amend “to the extent that Plaintiff can 20 attempt to seek a remedy allowed under the UCL.” Dkt. 68, at 7. Plaintiff then filed its Third 21 Amended Complaint (“TAC”) that fails to include a UCL claim at all. See Dkt. 69. 22 At this point, Plaintiff has been given ample opportunities to state a claim, and multiple 23 explanations for why its claims were not pleaded adequately. It has repeatedly failed to do so. 24 Accordingly, there is no need to require another round of motion practice when the result is 25 inevitable, nor is there a reason to allow Plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint. The TAC is 26 instead dismissed, sua sponte, with prejudice. See Wright v. United States, No. 13-cv-03008-CRB, 27 2015 WL 3902798, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2015) (sua sponte dismissing amended complaint 1 explored”). A separate judgment will enter and the case will be closed. 2 As a final note, Plaintiff has previously suggested that a ruling against it would “allow 3 || health plans to skip out on the bill entirely.” Dkt. 55, at 19. For one thing, this potential outcome 4 || does not relieve Plaintiff of its burden to state a viable claim for which this Court can grant relief. 5 Moreover, Plaintiff seems to ignore the possibility of seeking recovery from the individual 6 patients it treated, who could then seek recovery from the Chef’s Warehouse if, indeed, the □□□□□□ 7 Warehouse has not paid the correct amount according to the terms of the health plan. 8 9 || ITISSO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: April 24, 2023 a RICHARD SEEBORG 13 Chief United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE No. 22-cv-03946-RS