Case: California Hospital Association v. Maxwell-Jolly

2:09-cv-03694 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: May 22, 2009

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 22, 2009, a trade association representing the interests of hospitals in the State of California filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Health Care Services in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, brought suit under the Supremacy Clause; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Title XIX of the Social Security (Medicaid) Act, 42 U.S.C §1396; and the state con…

On May 22, 2009, a trade association representing the interests of hospitals in the State of California filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Health Care Services in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, brought suit under the Supremacy Clause; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Title XIX of the Social Security (Medicaid) Act, 42 U.S.C §1396; and the state constitution, claiming that California had illegally enacted payment rates from Medi-Cal managed care plans for emergency and poststabilization services provided by hospitals that do not contract with those plans. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the rates, as enacted by Assembly Bill 1183 and implemented by All Plan Letters 08-008 and 08-010 of the Department of Health Care Services, were unlawful as preempted under federal Medicaid law because they were not consistent with efficiency, economy, quality of care and sufficiency of access, did not represent an accurate average of the rates received by hospitals under their Medi-Cal contracts, and had not been subjected to public process; under California law because they attempted to establish rates lower than what the law allows and because they attempt to establish regulations outside the bounds of formal rulemaking; and under the Fifth Amendment and California Constitution because they constituted an uncompensated taking. Plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief.

This suit was one of many filed challenging the State of California's reduction in Medicaid reimbursement rates due to its budgetary crisis. Other cases in the Clearinghouse include Douglas v. Independent Living Center, No. 2:08−cv−03315 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0016]; California Association For Health Services At Home v. Shewry, No. 2:08-cv-07045 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0017]; California Medical Transportation Association, Inc. v. Shewry, No. 2:08-cv-07046 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0018]; Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-00382 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0019]; California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-00722 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0020]; California Medical Association v. Shewry, No. 2:08-cv-03363 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0021]; Sierra Medical Services Alliance v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:10-cv-04182 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0023]; National Association of Chain Drug Stores v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:09-cv-07097 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0024]; California Hospital Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-08642 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0025]; Development Services Network v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:10-cv-03284 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0026]; California Association of Health Facilities v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:10-cv-03259 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0027]; California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-08200 (C.D. Cal.) [PB-CA-0028].

On October 30, 2009, the California Association of Health Plans (CAHP) moved to intervene as a third party defendant. The District Court (Judge Christina A. Snyder) granted CAHP's motion on November 23, finding that its members' interest in not having to pay more to non-contracting hospitals was sufficiently incongruous with that of the Department of Health Care Services as to make it inadequately represented by the latter party. Cal. Hosp. Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 09-cv-03694, 2009 WL 4120725, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118036 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009).

Over the following year, proceedings were repeatedly postponed as parties attempted to reach a settlement agreement. (While the Court notes at docket entry 70 that parties informed it that they had come to a settlement on December 10, 2010, no further reference to the settlement is made, perhaps due to the stay described below.)

On September 2, 2010, the state defendant moved to stay the case until the Supreme Court resolved petitions for certiorari in Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc., No. 09-958 [PB-CA-0016], Maxwell-Jolly v. California Pharmacists Ass'n, No. 09-115 [PB-CA-0028], and Maxwell-Jolly v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, No. 10-283, all of which dealt with similar Supremacy Clause issues in Medi-Cal reimbursement rate cases. The District Court (Judge Snyder) granted the motion on September 7, staying the case pending resolution of the Supreme Court proceedings.

On June 11, 2011, the court removed the case from its active caseload and ordered the parties to file a quarterly joint status report until the case was reactivated or dismissed.

One such report, dated May 18, 2012, noted that the Supreme Court issued a decision in Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. (restyled Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc.), No. 09-958 [PB-CA-0016], remanding to the Ninth Circuit and calling into question the Supremacy Clause cause of action in this group of cases. Plaintiff urges that the stay be lifted, while defendants argued it should be continued pending the outcome of the cases remanded to the Ninth Circuit.

There was little subsequent activity on the docket. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case, indicating that they were part of a settlement reached in the Maxwell-Jolly case, available here. The court granted the motion on April 23. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Christopher Schad (6/25/2012)

Virginia Weeks (2/19/2018)

Related Cases

Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Maxwell-Jolly, Central District of California (2008)

California Association For Health Services At Home v. Shewry, Central District of California (2008)

California Medical Transportation Association, Inc. v. Shewry, Central District of California (2008)

California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, Central District of California (2009)

Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly, Central District of California (2009)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4144782/parties/california-hospital-association-v-david-maxwell-jolly/


Judge(s)

Nagle, Margaret A. (California)

Snyder, Christina A. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bookman, Lloyd A. (California)

Keville, Jordan B. (California)

Sze, Felicia Y. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Chambers, Shannon Michelle (California)

Linton, Elizabeth Ann (California)

Read-Spangler, Kara (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Active

Active

Judge(s)

Nagle, Margaret A. (California)

Snyder, Christina A. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bookman, Lloyd A. (California)

Keville, Jordan B. (California)

Sze, Felicia Y. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Chambers, Shannon Michelle (California)

Linton, Elizabeth Ann (California)

Read-Spangler, Kara (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Blanford, Thomas David (California)

O'Donnell, Neil H. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

April 23, 2015 Docket
1

Complaint

May 22, 2009 Complaint
28

[Minutes of] Proceedings [Granting] California Association of Health Plans' Motion to Intervene

2009 WL 4120725, 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 118036

Nov. 23, 2009 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4144782/california-hospital-association-v-david-maxwell-jolly/

Last updated May 20, 2022, 2:25 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

Complaint - (Discovery)

May 22, 2009 RECAP
2

Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties

May 22, 2009 PACER
3

Notice of Related Case(s)

May 22, 2009 PACER
4

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

May 26, 2009 PACER
5

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

June 1, 2009 PACER
6

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

June 1, 2009 PACER
7

Transferring Case purs GO 08-05 (Related Case (CV 34)

June 2, 2009 PACER
8

Order

June 8, 2009 PACER
9

Answer to Complaint (Discovery)

June 16, 2009 PACER
10

Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties

June 16, 2009 PACER
11

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

June 19, 2009 PACER
12

Request for Consideration

2 Proposed Order on Request to Appear Telephonically

View on PACER

July 21, 2009 PACER
13

Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112)

July 23, 2009 PACER
14

Order on Request for Consideration

July 23, 2009 PACER
15

Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan

July 24, 2009 PACER
16

Disclosure

July 30, 2009 PACER
17

Disclosure

July 30, 2009 PACER
18

Scheduling Conference

Aug. 10, 2009 PACER
19

Telephone Conference

Sept. 14, 2009 PACER
20

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Oct. 14, 2009 PACER
21

Motion to Intervene

Oct. 30, 2009 PACER
22

Memorandum in Support of Motion

Oct. 30, 2009 PACER
23

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Nov. 3, 2009 PACER
24

Non-Opposition to Motion

Nov. 9, 2009 PACER
25

Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information (G-06)

Nov. 9, 2009 PACER
26

Objection/Opposition (Motion related)

2 Declaration of Jordan B. Keville

View on PACER

Nov. 9, 2009 PACER
27

Reply (Motion related)

Nov. 16, 2009 PACER
28

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS California Association of Health Plans' Motion to Intervene 21 . Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

Nov. 23, 2009 RECAP
29

Answer to Complaint

Nov. 30, 2009 PACER
30

Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112)

Dec. 1, 2009 PACER
31

Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties

Dec. 4, 2009 RECAP
32

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Dec. 28, 2009 PACER
33

Motion to Compel

2 Supplement Joint Stipulation

View on PACER

3 Declaration Declaration in Support of Joint Stipulation

View on PACER

Dec. 29, 2009 PACER
34

Order on Motion to Compel

Jan. 5, 2010 PACER
35

Ex Parte Application for Order

2 Supplement Points and Authorities; Declaration in Support

View on PACER

3 Proposed Order re Ex Parte Application

View on PACER

4 Supplement Certificate of Service

View on PACER

Jan. 7, 2010 PACER
36

Order on Ex Parte Application for Order

Jan. 8, 2010 PACER
37

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Jan. 25, 2010 PACER
38

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Feb. 2, 2010 PACER
39

Settlement Conference

Feb. 19, 2010 PACER
40

Stipulation to Reschedule

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

March 4, 2010 PACER
41

Order

March 5, 2010 PACER
42

Telephone Conference

March 9, 2010 PACER
43

Telephone Conference

April 6, 2010 PACER
44

Stipulation to Reschedule

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

April 27, 2010 PACER
45

Order

April 27, 2010 PACER
46

Telephone Conference

May 4, 2010 PACER
47

Telephone Conference

May 11, 2010 PACER
48

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

May 18, 2010 PACER
49

Telephone Conference

May 26, 2010 PACER
50

Telephone Conference

June 9, 2010 PACER
51

Telephone Conference

June 23, 2010 PACER
52

Stipulation to Continue

1 Proposed Order re Joint Stipulation

View on PACER

June 29, 2010 PACER
53

Order

July 1, 2010 PACER
54

Telephone Conference

July 15, 2010 PACER
55

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Aug. 10, 2010 PACER
56

Telephone Conference

Aug. 26, 2010 PACER
57

Ex Parte Application to Stay Case

Sept. 2, 2010 PACER
58

Declaration (Motion related)

Sept. 2, 2010 PACER
59

Exhibit (non-trial)

Sept. 2, 2010 PACER
60

Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date

1 Proposed Order Granting Stipulation

View on PACER

Sept. 2, 2010 PACER
61

Response in Opposition to Motion

Sept. 2, 2010 PACER
62

Errata

Sept. 3, 2010 PACER
63

Notice of Lodging

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Sept. 3, 2010 PACER
64

Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112)

Sept. 7, 2010 PACER
66

Order on Ex Parte Application to Stay Case

Sept. 7, 2010 PACER
67

Order

Sept. 7, 2010 PACER
65

Reply (Motion related)

Sept. 8, 2010 PACER
68

Order

Sept. 23, 2010 PACER
69

Status Report

Oct. 20, 2010 PACER
70

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Dec. 16, 2010 PACER
71

Amended Minutes

Dec. 16, 2010 PACER
72

Status Report

Jan. 19, 2011 PACER
73

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

June 1, 2011 PACER
74

Status Report

July 1, 2011 PACER
75

Status Report

Oct. 5, 2011 PACER
76

Status Report

Jan. 5, 2012 PACER
77

Status Report

May 18, 2012 PACER
78

Exhibit (non-trial)

May 22, 2012 PACER
79

Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112)

May 29, 2012 PACER
80

Status Report

Oct. 9, 2012 PACER
84

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) STAY OF PROCEEDINGS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: By order dated 7/8/2013, the Court directed the parties in these matters to submit a joint status report. Dkt. #242, in case no. 2:11−CV−09688−CAS(MANx). The joint status report was filed on 7/23/2013. Dkt. #243, in case no. 2:11−CV−09688−CAS(MANx). The Court has reviewed the parties' positions set forth therein, as well as the issues presented by the petition for writ of certiorari now pending in the United States Supreme Court, see Supreme Court Docket No. 13−253. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there is good cause to stay the proceedings or, if applicable, to continue the existing stay of the proceedings in the above−entitled cases, pending notification from this Court. The parties are directed to file a joint status report with this Court within 14 days after the Supreme Court has taken any action with respect to the above−referenced petition for writ of certiorari. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk) (Entered: 11/06/2013)

Nov. 5, 2013
81

Text Only Bounced Notice of Electronic Filing E-mail

Oct. 9, 2012 PACER
85

EX PARTE APPLICATION to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiff California Hospital Association. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Voluntary Dismissal of Action, # 2 Declaration of Jordan B. Keville in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Voluntary Dismissal of Action, # 3 Proposed Order on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Voluntary Dismissal of Action)(Keville, Jordan) (Entered: 04/17/2015)

April 17, 2015
82

Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information (G-06)

July 26, 2013 PACER
86

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application 85 is GRANTED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4l(a)(2), Case No. 2:09−cv−03694 is hereby dismissed with prejudice, with each party to the case to bear its own costs. (gk) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

April 23, 2015
83

Text Only Bounced Notice of Electronic Filing E-mail

July 26, 2013 PACER

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 22, 2009

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

a trade association representing the interests of hospitals in the State of California

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

The State of California, State

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Takings

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Unknown

Nature of Relief:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Voluntary Dismissal

Issues

General:

Payment for care

Benefit Source:

Medicaid