Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0932-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LA CLÍNICA DE LA RAZA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and Human Services; David Maxwell-Jolly, Director of California Department of Health Care Services, Health and Human Services Agency, State of California; The State of California, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16775
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted October 19, 2016 San Francisco, California
    Filed October 31, 2016
    James Leo Feldesman, Esquire, Attorney, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP, Washington, DC, Marisa B. Guevara, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell & Bank, Washington, DC, Robert F. Kane, Law Offices of Robert F. Kane, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Sarah Elizabeth Kurtz, Esquire, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Joshua Sondheimer, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KRONSTADT, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

La Clínica appeals the district court’s decision that its claim for future injunctive and declaratory relief does not present a case or controversy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm because La Clínica lacks standing to challenge the legality of Option 2.

Article III standing requires that a plaintiff has (1) suffered an injury in fact; (2) that is traceable to the challenged action; and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable court determination. Snake River Farmers' Ass’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 9 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). La Clínica has not suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to California’s Medicaid billing methods because as the district court correctly observed, if La Clínica believes that Option 2 is illegal, it can proceed under Option 1. La Clínica has not provided any reason why it cannot proceed under Option 1 or evidence of disadvantage. Also, a favorable court determination would not redress La Clinica’s claimed injury because, if Option 2 was unavailable on the ground that it violated federal law, La Clínica would have to utilize Option 1, an option freely available to it now.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.