Case: Sierra Medical Services Alliance v. Maxwell-Jolly

2:10-cv-04182 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: June 6, 2010

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 6, 2010, a coalition of medical transportation providers filed this action against the California Department of Health Care Services in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, challenging Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), the California state budget bill for the fiscal year of 2009-2010. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, brought their suit under the Supremacy Clause; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and Title XIX…

On June 6, 2010, a coalition of medical transportation providers filed this action against the California Department of Health Care Services in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, challenging Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), the California state budget bill for the fiscal year of 2009-2010. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, brought their suit under the Supremacy Clause; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396, claiming that the rate freeze on medical transportation imposed by AB 5 was unlawful. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that the rate freeze was preempted by the Medicaid Act, an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, and a violation of equal protection and procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary 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.); California Association For Health Services At Home v. Shewry, No. 2:08-cv-07045 (C.D. Cal.); California Medical Transportation Association, Inc. v. Shewry, No. 2:08-cv-07046 (C.D. Cal.); Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-00382 (C.D. Cal.); California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-00722 (C.D. Cal.); California Medical Association v. Shewry, No. 2:08-cv-03363 (C.D. Cal.); California Hospital Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-03694 (C.D. Cal.); National Association of Chain Drug Stores v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:09-cv-07097 (C.D. Cal.); California Hospital Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-08642 (C.D. Cal.); Development Services Network v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:10-cv-03284 (C.D. Cal.); California Association of Health Facilities v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:10-cv-03259  (C.D. Cal.); California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 2:09-cv-08200 (C.D. Cal.).

On June 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to enjoin application of the rate freeze. Rather than deciding on this motion, however, on July 16, 2010, the Court (Judge Christina A. Snyder) stayed the case, finding that pending actions in the Supreme Court could be dispositive of some of plaintiffs' claims, and ordered the parties to file quarterly status reports until the case was reactivated or dismissed.

In a status report, dated May 2, 2012, the parties noted that all of the cases before the Supreme Court had been decided. Plaintiffs stated their intent to once again move for a lifting of the stay, while defendants believed the stay should be continued, citing key issues still pending before the Ninth Circuit on remand from the Supreme Court.

On September 11, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, lifted the stay, and placed the case on the court's active list.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 20, 2012. The complaint made essentially the same claims as the original complaint, including unconstitutional takings without just compensation, procedural due process violations, equal protection violations, and violations of the Contract and Interstate Commerce Clauses. The plaintiffs again sought injunctive relief and compensatory damages.

On October 25, 2013, the state moved for summary judgment. After the court ordered and then later lifted another temporary stay, it (Judge Christina A. Snyder) granted the state's motion for summary judgment on August 11, 2014. The court held that the takings and due process claims failed because plaintiffs did not have a property interest in the reimbursement rates set by the California Code of Regulations. The Contracts Clause claim failed because plaintiffs did not show that the state's failure to increase the reimbursement rates has substantially impaired their contracts with the cities and special districts they contracted with. Finally, the Commerce Clause claim failed because all plaintiffs could show was that the new reimbursement rates burdened them "by not compensating them as well as they would prefer."

On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. There is no docket activity after June 10, 2015, when the docket indicated that the appeal was still pending.

However, the case is likely closed because of a settlement reached in the related cases ending their suits.

Summary Authors

Christopher Schad (6/25/2012)

Andrew Junker (10/9/2014)

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/5791511/parties/sierra-medical-services-alliance-v-david-maxwell-jolly/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Hagemann, Kelly M. (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Angelopoulos, Tracey L. (California)

Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)

Crane, Chara L. (California)

Elias, Nimrod P (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:10-cv-04182

Docket

June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Docket
1

2:10-cv-04182

Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Damages; Demand for Jury Trial

Sierra Medical Services v. Maxwell-Jolly

June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Complaint
19

2:10-cv-04182

Notice of Motion and Motion for Stay

Sierra Medical Services Alliances v. Maxwell-Jolly

July 7, 2010

July 7, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
23

2:10-cv-04182

[Order Granting] Defendants' Ex Parte Application for a Stay

July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Order/Opinion

2010 WL 2891547

45

2:10-cv-04182

[Order Denying] Plaintiffs' [First] Request to Lift Stay

July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011

Order/Opinion

2011 WL 3205358

54

2:10-cv-04182

[Order Denying] Plaintiffs' [Second] Request to Lift Stay

Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

Order/Opinion

2011 WL 3837076

67

2:10-cv-04182

Sierra Medical Services Alliance v. David Maxwell-Jolly - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Sierra Medical Services Alliance v. David Maxwell-Jolly

Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

Complaint
127

2:10-cv-04182

Opinion and Order granting defendant's MSJ

Sierra Medical Services Alliance, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, et al.

July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5791511/sierra-medical-services-alliance-v-david-maxwell-jolly/

Last updated May 1, 2025, 11:50 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
23

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS Defendants' Ex Parte Application for a Stay, or Alternatively, for an Order Shortening Time on Defendants' Motion to Stay 13 . Within 30 days from the date of this order, or upon the disposition of the petitions for certiorari, whichever occurs first, the parties shall file a joint status report. Because defendants' Motion to Stay, filed 7/6/2010 19 , seeks the same relief granted herein the Motion to Stay is hereby DENIED as moot. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

RECAP
45

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' Status Report and Request to Lift Stay and Reopen the Case 41 without prejudice to being renewed by properly noticed motion. The Court hereby DENIES as moot Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 38 within 21 days of thestay being lifted. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011

RECAP
54

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and Place the Case on the Court's Active List 47 . The parties shall continue to file quarterly status reports detailing the status of the case until the action has been reactivated on this Court's active caseload or a stipulation for dismissal is filed. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

RECAP
122

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle re Stipulation for Protective Order 117 (ec)

June 27, 2014

June 27, 2014

RECAP
129

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Pursuant to the Court's 7/28/2014 Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 127 , it is hereby ordered that JUDGMENT shall be entered in favor of Defendants as prevailing parties and against Plaintiffs. Costs shall be taxedagainst Plaintiffs. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)

Aug. 11, 2014

Aug. 11, 2014

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 6, 2010

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A coalition of providers of medical transportation services.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

California Department of Health Care Services, State

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Commerce Power

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Unknown

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Unknown

Issues

General/Misc.:

Funding

Payment for care

Benefits (Source):

Medicaid