Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:467

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11 CALIFORNIA MEDICAL

) Case No.: CV 08-3363 CAS (MANx)

ASSOCIATION; ET AL.,

)

12

) ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION

Petitioners

) TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

13

) SUPERIOR COURT

vs.

)

14

)

SANDRA SHEWRY, ETC.; ET AL.

)

15

)

Respondents

)

16 __________________________________ )

17 I. INTRODUCTION

18

On May 5, 2008, petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate and a class action

19 complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking injunctive and

20 declaratory relief against the California Department of Health Care Services (“the

21 Department”) and Sandra Shewry, Director of the Department (“the Director”).1 The

22 Department is a California agency charged with the administration of California’s

23 Medicaid program, Medi-Cal. Petitioners are professional and trade associations that

24

25

26

1 Petitioners are the California Medical Association; the California Hospital Association; the California Dental Association; the California Association for Adult Day

27 Services; the American College of Emergency Physicians, State Chapter of California, Inc.;

28

the California Pharmacists Association; and the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems.

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:468

1 represent the interests of California physicians, emergency physicians, dentists,

2 pharmacists, adult day services providers, hospitals, and public hospital systems.

3 Compl. ¶¶ 9-15.

4

On February 16, 2008, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill X3 5

5 (“AB 5”) in special session. Id. ¶ 38. Section 14 of AB 5 adds Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code

6 § 14105.19, which reduces by ten percent payments under the Medi-Cal fee-for-service

7 program for physicians, dentists, pharmacies, adult day health care centers, clinics,

8 health systems, and other providers for services provided on or after July 1, 2008. Cal.

9 Welf. & Inst. § 14105.19(b)(1); Compl. ¶ 39. Section 15 of AB 5 adds Cal. Welf. &

10 Inst. Code § 14166.245, which reduces payments to acute care hospitals not under

11 contract with the Department for inpatient services provided on or after July 1, 2008.

12 Cal. Welf. & Inst. § 14166.245(c).2 The Court herein refers to these rate and payment

13 reductions as the “ten percent rate reduction.”

14

Petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates various state and

15 federal laws as set forth infra, and therefore, cannot be implemented. They allege

16 claims for (1) a writ of mandate for violation of federal law and California’s Medicaid

17 plan (“the state plan”); (2) declaratory relief; and (3) preliminary and permanent

18 injunctive relief.

19

On May 21, 2008, respondents removed the action to this Court, asserting

20

21

2 The Department is empowered to co ntract with individual hospitals for the

22 exclusive right to treat Medi-Cal patients. Cal. Welf. & Inst. § 14081; Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shewry , 137 C al. App. 4th 964, 969-70 (2006). C ontracting hospitals are

23 reimbursed by the Department at the negotiated contract rate, and once the Department has

24 contracted with enough hospitals to m eet the needs of Medi-Cal beneficiaries in a geographic area, it awards no further contracts in that area. Cedars-Sinai, 137 Cal. App.
25 4th at 970. Noncontract hospitals are onlyreimbursed for treating Medi-Cal patients under

26 certain circumstances, inclu ding when providing emergency care or when providing services to a patient whose Medi-Cal eligibility was unknown at the time of admission. Id.
27

28

2

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:469

1 federal question jurisdiction. On May 30, 2008, petitioners filed the instant motion to

2 remand the case to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Respondents filed an opposition

3 thereto on June 2, 2008. On June 16, 2008, petitioners filed a reply. A hearing was

4 held on June 23, 2008. After carefully considering the arguments set forth by the

5 parties, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

6 II. BACKGROUND

7

A. Medicaid and Medi-Cal

8

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

9 Act”), authorizes the federal government to distribute funds to participating states for

10 the purpose of providing medical assistance to low income persons who are aged, blind,

11 disabled, or members of families with dependent children. Because California has

12 elected to participate in the Medicaid program, it must administer its state Medicaid

13 program, Medi-Cal, in compliance with a state plan that has been pre-approved by the

14 Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) and

15 which complies with the requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(1)-(70).

16

Under California law, the Department must administer Medi-Cal in accordance

17 with the state plan; applicable state law, as specified in the Welfare and Institutions

18 Code; and Medi-Cal regulations. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 50004(b).

19

B. Alleged Violations of State and Federal Law

20

Petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction fails to comply with

21 California’s state plan, in violation of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 50004(b) and the

22 Medicaid Act, because, according to petitioners,

23

(1) neither the Department nor the Legislature ensured that

24

Medi-Cal payment rates incorporating the ten percent rate

25

reduction are sufficient to establish equal access to services

26

for Medi-Cal beneficiaries;

27

(2) with respect to non-institutional services, neither the

28

3

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:470

1

Department nor the Legislature (a) developed an evidentiary

2

base or rate study resulting in the determination of proposed

3

rates incorporating the ten percent rate reduction; (b)

4

presented the proposed rates incorporating the ten percent rate

5

reduction at a public hearing to gather public input; (c)

6

determined the final rates based on the evidentiary base

7

including the pertinent public input; or (d) established the

8

payment rates incorporating the ten percent rate reduction

9

through adoption of regulations specifying such rates; and/or

10

(3) with respect to non-institutional services, the rate

11

adjustments made by the ten percent rate reduction otherwise

12

fail to meet the requirements of 42 C.F.R. Part 447.

13 Compl. ¶ 64.

14

Petitioners also allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates Attachment

15 4.19-A of the state plan as to hospital inpatient services and Attachment 4.19-D as to

16 distinct part nursing unit services. Petitioners maintain that in light of these violations

17 of the state plan, the Department may not lawfully implement the ten percent rate

18 reduction unless the Secretary approves amendments to the state plan. Id. ¶ 65.

19

Additionally, petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates Cal.

20 Welf. & Inst. Code § 14079, which provides that “[t]he director annually shall review

21 the reimbursement levels for physician and dental services under Medi-Cal, and shall

22 revise periodically the rates of reimbursement to physicians and dentists to ensure the

23 reasonable access of Medi-Cal beneficiaries to physician and dental services.”

24 Petitioners maintain that the ten percent rate reduction violates § 14079 because it

25 mandates a rate reduction without the Director’s annual review and corresponding

26 / / /

27 revision of reimbursement rates to ensure that beneficiaries have reasonable access to

28

4

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:471

1 physician and dental services. Id. ¶ 66.

2

Petitioners further allege that the California Legislature exceeded the scope of its

3 authority under the California Constitution when it enacted the ten percent rate

4 reduction during the special session called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Id. ¶

5 67.

6

In addition, petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates 42

7 C.F.R. § 447.204 because it fails to ensure that Medi-Cal “payments [are] sufficient to

8 enlist enough providers so that services under the [state plan] are available to recipients

9 at least to the extent that those services are available to the general population.” Id. ¶

10 68.

11

Finally, petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates three

12 provisions of the Medicaid Act:

13

First, petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates 42 U.S.C. §

14 1396a(30)(A) (“section (30)(A)”), which requires that the state plan

15

provide such methods and procedures relating to the

16

utilization of, and payment for, care and services available

17

under the plan . . . as may be necessary . . . to assure that

18

payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality

19

of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that

20

care and services are available under the plan at least to the

21

extent that such care and services are available to the general

22

population in the geographic area.

23 Petitioners allege that the rates that result from the ten percent rate reduction are

24 inconsistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care, and are not sufficient to

25 enlist adequate numbers of providers. Petitioners allege that the Department and the

26 Legislature improperly neglected to consider these factors in enacting and implementing

27 the ten percent rate reduction. Furthermore, petitioners allege that the Department and

28

5

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:472

1 the Legislature improperly failed to consider the effect of the ten percent rate reduction

2 on Medi-Cal rates in light of provider costs. Compl. ¶ 69(a).

3

Second, petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates 42 U.S.C. §

4 1396a(a)(8) (“section (a)(8)”), which requires that the state plan provide that medical

5 assistance shall be furnished to eligible individuals with “reasonable promptness,”

6 because it fails to ensure that Medi-Cal beneficiaries can access care promptly. Id. ¶

7 69(b).

8

Third, petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction violates 42 U.S.C. §

9 1396a(a)(13) (“section (a)(13)”), which requires the state plan to provide for a public

10 process for determining rates of payment for hospital services and certain other

11 institutional providers. This public process must include (i) the publication of proposed

12 rates, the methodologies underlying the establishment of such rates, and justifications

13 for the proposed rates; (ii) a reasonable opportunity for providers, beneficiaries and

14 their representatives, and other concerned California residents to review and comment

15 on the proposed rates, methodologies, and justifications; and (iii) the publication of

16 final rates, the methodologies underlying the establishment of such rates, and the

17 justifications for such final rates. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(13)(A). Petitioners allege that the

18 ten percent rate reduction was not adopted in accordance with such a public process, in

19 violation of this provision. Compl. ¶ 69(c).

20

C. Relief Sought

21

Petitioners seek a writ of mandate and an injunction precluding respondents from

22 implementing the ten percent rate reduction.

23

Additionally, petitioners seek a declaration that the ten percent rate reduction is

24 invalid because it violates the provisions of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 50004, the state

25 plan, section (30)(A), section (a)(8), section (a)(13), and 42 C.F.R. § 447.204.

26 Petitioners also seek a declaration that the ten percent rate reduction is a de facto

27 amendment to the state plan, such that it cannot be implemented without federal

28

6

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:473

1 approval.

2

Petitioners also seek a declaration that, when setting Medi-Cal rates in the future,

3 the Department must consider whether the rates have a reasonable relationship to the

4 costs of providing services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries and are sufficient to ensure equal

5 access to services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

6 III. DISCUSSION

7

The question presented is whether petitioners’ complaint presents a federal

8 question or whether this action must be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

9

10

A civil action may be removed from state court if a district court would have

11 original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). It is the removing party’s

12 burden to demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate

13 Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). The removal statute is strictly construed

14 and “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal

15 in the first instance.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996).

16

Federal question jurisdiction extends only to “those cases in which a well-

17 pleaded complaint establishes that federal law creates the cause of action or that the

18 plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of

19 federal law . . .” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 108 S. Ct. 2166, 2173

20 (1988) (quoting Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Const. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463

21 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)); Ultramar Am., Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir.

22 1990) (“Claims brought under state law may ‘arise under’ federal law if vindication of

23 the state right necessarily turns upon construction of a substantial question of federal

24 law, i.e., if federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims.”). A

25 state claim may give rise to federal question jurisdiction only if it necessarily raises a

26 substantial and disputed federal issue that may be considered by a federal court without

27 disturbing “any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial

28

7

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:474

1 responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 125 S. Ct. 2363,

2 2368 (2005).

3

Additionally, “[w]hen a claim can be supported by alternative and independent

4 theories -- one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law theory --

5 federal question jurisdiction does not attach because federal law is not a necessary

6 element of the claim.” Rains v. Criterion Sys., 80 F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996);

7 Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1486 (“if a single state-law based theory of relief can be offered for

8 each of the three causes of action in the complaint, then the exercise of removal

9 jurisdiction was improper.”); see also Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187,

10 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (“One of the key characteristics of a mere ‘theory,’ as opposed to a

11 distinct claim, is that a plaintiff may obtain the relief he seeks without prevailing on

12 it.”).

13

Petitioners contend that the complaint alleges three claims -- all of which arise

14 under state law -- for a writ of mandate, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. While

15 they acknowledge that these claims are predicated on alleged violations of both state

16 and federal law, petitioners maintain that they can prevail on these claims based solely

17 on the alleged violations of state law. Petitioners argue that because the Court therefore

18 need not reach the questions of whether federal law has been violated, there is no

19 federal question jurisdiction.

20

Because federal law does not create any of petitioners’ claims, federal question

21 jurisdiction may lie only if any of these claims necessarily depends on the resolution of

22 a substantial question of federal law.

23

Each of petitioner’s three claims for relief is essentially directed at obtaining the

24 same result -- preventing the implementation of the ten percent rate reduction. In

25 support of each of these claims, petitioners allege that the ten percent rate reduction

26 violates the California Constitution and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 14079. Petitioners

27 further allege that the ten percent rate reduction fails to comply with the state plan, in

28

8

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:475

1 violation of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 50004(b). Additionally, petitioners allege that

2 they are entitled to relief on their claims based on the ten percent rate reduction’s

3 noncompliance with section (30)(A), section (a)(8), section (a)(13), and 42 C.F.R. §

4 447.204.

5

Respondents focus on the violations of federal law alleged by petitioners in

6 arguing that petitioners’ state law claims for relief turn on substantial and disputed

7 questions of federal law, giving rise to a federal question. However, because petitioners

8 have stated alternative state law theories for proceeding on each of their claims for

9 relief, under Rains, the allegations that the ten percent rate reduction violates federal

10 law are not necessary to any of petitioners’ claims for relief. See also Pickern v.

11 Stanton’s Rest. & Woodsman Room, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1587, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

12 2002) (“For state law claims to support federal question jurisdiction, federal law must

13 provide the only possible theory for relief. If an alternative, independent state law

14 theory for a claim exists, then federal question jurisdiction will not lie.”) (citations

15 omitted). Therefore, the allegations that the ten percent rate reduction violates federal

16 law do not suffice to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

17

Moreover, the alleged violations of state law do not themselves raise any

18 substantial federal questions because determining whether there has been a violation

19 does not require reference to or interpretation of federal law. Hendricks v. Dynegy

20 Power Mktg., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1161 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“a claim raises a

21 substantial question of federal law when its resolution requires reference to or

22 interpretation of federal law.”). Federal law has no bearing on petitioners’ allegations

23 that the California Legislature enacted the ten percent rate reduction in violation of the

24 California Constitution and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 14079. Likewise, although the

25 state plan must comply with the Medicaid Act and be approved by the Secretary, the

26 question whether implementation of the ten percent rate reduction is invalid because it

27 violates the state plan turns upon an interpretation of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, §

28

9

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:476

1 50004(b)(1) -- which requires that the Department administer Medi-Cal in accordance

2 with the state plan -- and therefore, is one of state law.3 See Grable & Sons Metal

3 Prods. v. Darue Eng’g Mfg., 125 S. Ct. 2363, 2367 (2005) (“federal jurisdiction

4 demands not only a contested federal issue, but a substantial one, indicating a serious

5 federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum.”).

6

Although respondents do not address petitioners’ contention that the ten percent

7 rate reduction violates the California Constitution, they argue that AB 5 supercedes Cal.

8 Welf. & Inst. Code § 14079 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 50004, such that the ten

9 percent rate reduction is not invalidated by either of these provisions. Respondents rely

10 primarily on Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 14105.19’s provision that the Director shall

11 reduce Medi-Cal payments as set forth in that section “[n]otwithstanding any other

12 provision of law . . .” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 14105.19(a). In effect, respondents

13 request this Court to decide petitioners’ state law theories on their merits. However, it

14 would not be proper for this Court to engage in such an inquiry prior to a determination

15 that it has jurisdiction to do so. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,

16 101-102 (1998) (“For a court to pronounce upon the meaning or the constitutionality of

17 a state or federal law when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for a

18 court to act ultra vires.”); Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt., LLC,

19 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39214, at *11 (D.N.J. 2007) (“This Court must establish the

20 existence of subject-matter jurisdiction before engaging in any consideration of the

21

22

3 Respondents rely on Concourse Rehab.& Nursing Ctr. Inc. v. DeBuono, 179 F.3d

38 (2d Cir. 1999), in which the court stated that to plead a federal claim, a plaintiff must

23 allege a “specific conflict between a state plan or practice on the one hand and a federal

24 mandate on the other.” Id.at 43-44. However, respondents do not argue that determining whether the ten percent rate reduction violates the state pl an necessarily involves the
25 reference to or interpretati on of federal law. Instead, re spondents merely argue that a

26 federal question exists becausepetitioners’ claims are predicated on a conflict between the ten percent rate reduction and violations of the Medicaid Act. Accordingly, respondents’
27 citation to DeBuono is inapposite.

28

10

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:477

1 merits.”). Accordingly, this argument fails.

2

Respondents also argue that removal is proper because the remedy sought by

3 petitioners implicates an overriding federal interest. In this regard, they point to the

4 powers granted to the Secretary under 42 U.S.C. § 1396c, which provides that the

5 Secretary may withhold funds to a state Medicaid agency where its state plan fails to

6 comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1396a or where the agency has failed to comply substantially

7 with any provision thereof. Respondents also note the federal government’s substantial

8 financial interest in the Medicaid program.

9

These arguments are immaterial to the question of whether this Court has subject

10 matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ claims. Respondents do not suggest that the

11 complete preemption doctrine applies in this instance. See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410

12 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“when the preemptive force of a [federal] statute is so

13 strong that it completely preempts an area of state law . . . federal law displaces a

14 plaintiff’s state-law claim, no matter how carefully pleaded.”). In the absence of a

15 substantial and contested federal issue, generalized considerations regarding the relative

16 federal and state interests implicated by petitioners’ claims do not bear on whether these

17 claims give rise to a federal question. Grable, 125 S. Ct. at 2368.

18

Similarly, respondents’ argument that remand is improper due to the pendency of

19 a related action in this Court, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Calif. v. Shewry, CV 08-3315

20 CAS (MANx), lacks merit. Because Independent Living Center involves a party’s

21 attempt to block the implementation of an aspect of the ten percent rate reduction,

22 respondents contend that remand of this action would create the risk of inconsistent

23 judgments and waste judicial resources. Because such concerns have no effect on the

24 existence of federal question jurisdiction, this argument is unavailing.

25

In conclusion, the Court finds and concludes that petitioners’ claims for relief do

26 not give rise to a federal question, such that this action was improperly removed from

27

28

11

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS -MAN Document 27 Filed 06/23/08 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:478

1 state court.4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS petitioners’ motion to remand this action

2 to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

3 IV. CONCLUSION

4

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS petitioners’ motion to

5 remand.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: June 23, 2008

8

9

_______________________________ CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 4 In light of the Court’s holding herein, it does not reach petitioners’ further
27 arguments regarding their inability to pursue their federal law theories in federal court.

28

12

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 88 Page ID #:1
FILED

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney General of the State of California

200BMAY21 PH I: 18

I 2 RICHARD T. WALDOW
3 rENm~s~IfR~~R1Attorney G e n e r a l ' ~~t:;~~i ~~'(~\ r i'~l ~ c~C ~c~~S~~ T

S!l~ervising De:Quty _Attorney General

4 PHILLIP J. MATSUMOTO, State BarNo. 140386 8 (----.

Deputy Atto~_eJ' SJeneral

5 TA-.RAL. NEWMAN, State BarNo. 210960

Deputy Attorney General

6 SARA UGAZ, State Bar No. 239031

Deputy Attorney General

7 300 South Spnng Stree~ Suite 1702

Los Angeles, Cft.. 9001 j

8 Telephone: (213) 897-2463

Fax: (213) 897-1805

9 Email: Sara.Ugaz@doj.ca~gov

Attorneys for Respondents Sandra SheW!)'; Director of the California

10 Department of Health Care Services, and tne California Department of

Health Care Services

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

WESTERN DIVISION

14

~.t~!'

15 CALIFORNIA MEDICAL

reI CaseNo~V08-03363

16 ASSOCIATION.-7 CALIFORNIA

HOSPITAL AS~OCIATION;

(Los Angeles Superior Court

17 CALIFORNIA DENTAL

Case No. BC390126 )

ASSOCIATION; CALIFORNIA

18 ASSOCIATIONFORADULTDAY

RESPONDENTS' NOTICE OF

SERVICES;. AMERICAN COLLEGE REMOVAL OF ACTION

19 OF EMER\jENCY PHYSICIANS,

UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1441(b)

STATE CHAPTER OF CALIFORNIA,

20 INCi CALIFORNIA PHARMACISTS

ASSuCIATION, and CALIFORNIA

21 ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH

22 SYSTEMS,

23

Petitioners,

24

v.

25 SANDRA SHEWRY, Director of the Department of Health Care Services,
26 State of California; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
27 SERVICES,

28

Res ondents.

1

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 88 Page ID #:2

1 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondents Sandra Shewry, Director of the

3 California Department of Health Care Services, and the California Department of

4 Health Care Services hereby remove to this Court the state court action described

5 below:

6

1. On May 5, 2008, Petitioners filed a Class Action Complaint and Petition

7 for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, and Writ of Mandate, in the Superior

8 Court of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, entitled "California

9 Medical Association; California Hospital Association; California Dental

10 Association; California Association For Adult Day Services; American College of

11 Emergency Physicians, State Chapter of California, Inc.; California Pharmacists

12 Association, and California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems,

13 Petitioners, vs. Sandra Shewry, Director of the Department of Health Care

14 Services, State of California; California Department of Health Care Services," as

15 case number BC390126.

16

2. In their Complaint, Petitioners, which are professional associations that

17 represent the interests of Medi-Cal providers, seek to enjoin Respondents from

18 implementing state legislation requiring a 10% reduction in Medi-Cal payments to

19 Medi-Cal providers. Petitioners allege that the proposed reduction, which is

20 planned to go into effect on July 1, 2008, violates the Medicaid Act, namely 42

21 U.S.C. § l396a subd. (a)(30)(a) and 42 C.F.R. § 447.204, among other things.

22

3. Respondents Sandra Shewry, Director of the California Department of

23 Health Care Services, and the California Department of Health Care Services were

24 served with copies of the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus on May 5, 2008.

25

4. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this civil action is within the original jurisdiction

26 of this Court. Respondents may remove this case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §

27 1441(b) because Petitioners allege that Respondents violated federal laws, namely

28 the Medicaid Act and 42 C.F.R. § 447.204.

2

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 3 of 88 Page ID #:3

1

5. This case is related to case number CV 08-03315 CAS (MANx), which

2 was removed to this Court from the Los Angeles Superior Court on May 19,2008,

3 which also challenges the Medi-Cal rate reduction.

4

6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), attached are true and correct copies of the

5 state-court file in this case, as served on Respondents:

6

a. Exhibit A: Summons

7

b. Exhibit B: Class Action Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief,

8

Declaratory Relief, and Writ of Mandate

9

c. Exhibit C: Civil Case Cover Sheet

10

d. Exhibit D: Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of

11

Location

12

e. Exhibit E: Notice of Civil Assignment-Unlimited Civil Case

13

f. Exhibit F: Notice of Related Case

14

g. Exhibit G: Notice of Order re: Complex Case Designation

15

Dated: May 21, 2008

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25
26
27 28 60301417.wpd
LA2008600733

Respectfully submitted,
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California
RICHARD T. WALDOW Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JENNIFER M. KIM Supervising Deputy Attorney General
PHILLIP J. MATSUMOTO Deputy Attorney General
TARA L. NEWMAN Depu,ty Attorney General
}0Wi~ ~

SARA UGAZ Deputy Attorney

~:e'ral

Attorneys for Respondents Sandra Shewry", Director of

the California Department of Health Care ;::,ervices, and

the California Department of Health Care Services

3

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MANDEDCoLcAuRmAeTntIO1N OFiFleSdE0R5V/2I1C/0E8 Page 4 of 88 Page ID #:4

Case Name: California Medical Assn., et al. v. nHCS

No.:

BC390126

I declare:

I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter; my business address is 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On May 21,2008, I served the following document(s):

RESPONDENTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1441(b)

on the parties through their attorneys of record, by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as shown below for service as designated below:

(A) By OverniteMail: I caused each such envelope to be placed in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for.

(B) By Messenger Service: I caused each such envelope to be delivered to a courier employed by a professional messenger service, with whom we have a direct billing account, who personally delivered each such envelope to the office of the addresses listed below.

(C) By FAX: On May 21,2008 at 10:22 AM., I served the attached above-referenced document by transmitting a true copy by facsimile machine, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.306. The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2.306, and no error was reported by the machine'. Pursuant to rule 2.306(g)(4), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration.

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

I declare under penalty of petjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 21, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.

Jin S. Nam Declarant
60302964.wpd

(

Signature

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN DocuSmEeRnVt 1ICEFLilIeSdT05/21/08 Page 5 of 88 Page ID #:5
TYPE OF SERVICE: A & B Lloyd A. Bookman, Esq. Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc. - LA 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2799 Telephone: (310) 551-8111 Fax: (310) 551-8181
TYPE OF SERVICE: A & C Craig J. Cannizzo, Esq. Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc. - SF 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-8500 Fax: (415) 875-8519

Case 2:0*8**-*c*v*-*0**3**3*6**3*-C-COAMSM-. MJOAURNNAL-D*o**c*u*m***e*n**t*1*****F**ileDdATE05M/A2Y1-2/01-82008P*a**g**e T6IMoEf1818:10 P**a**g*e***ID #:6

MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION

START=MAY-21 11:03

FILE NO.=558

STN COMM. NO.

ONE-TOUCH/ STATION NAME/TEL NO. ABBR NO.

001 OK a

914158758519

END=MAY-21 11:10 PAGES DURATION
006/006 00:02:37

************************************
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General

*****

1 213 897 2805- *********

State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message contains information from tne State of California, Attorney General's Office, which may be privileged, confidential. and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication is not lne intended recipient. you are hereby notified thllt any dissemination, distribution. or oOi!1ying of this communication is strictly prOhibited.

DATE: May 21,2008

TIME: 10:22 AM

TO: NAME:

Craig J. Cannizzo, Esq.

NO. OF PAGES:

«-

(Including Fax Cover Sheet)

OFFICE:

Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc, • San Francisco

LOCATION:

San Francisco

FAX NO.:

(415) 875.8519

PHONE NO.: (415) 875·8500

FROM: NAME: OFFICE:
LOCATION: FAX NO.:

Jin S. Nam, Legal Secretary to SARA UGAZ, Deputy Attorney General

Los Angeles (213) 897.2805

PHONE NO.: (213) 897-2461

MESSAGEIINSTRUCTIONS Re: California Medical Assn. et aL v. DHCS; BC390126 Please see attached document:

RESPONDENTS' NOTICE OF ,REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1441(b)
w/i)t£f eyh,bl''h
*Hard copies sent via Overnight Delivery.

6030296S.w.~

PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR ASSIST~NCE WITH THIS FAX, PLEASE CALL THE SENDER

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 7 of 88 Page ID #:7
EXHIBIT - A

'J':

•

05/05/2008 13:58 1~1,05596298

Case , .....

2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN,

"Documen.t

. 1

.'

.F",,il-e,AdLl0. 5ST/2A'R1. /0A,"8ny,P',savgce" 8 of 88

Page IDPA#G:8E

!35/28

.' ".. :'.:

. 50114-100 . .,...-----~---:'-----=..::::.:..::;..:.::.:;

NOTlCETODeFEND~:' ~~ORMED.COPY .SUMMONS .. ' " . (CtrA~/QN~U~iCIALJ" ,.

·:t··· " " '

FORCauirrUSo!'!c:wr..",'

·:.:....

t:SOI4J.~~.~Clft:A~

, ...' . . ' .. , ."','. . ',:.:::

(AVISO AL DEMA.NDADO);· . . ' . '.... ' .', .: ':',' :' ': ':. ,LOtAiJpRfgfaA1.{iUiD. ..,

_orCaUrt SANDRA SHEWRY.. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEAlTH CARE: . ' .,',

:0 2008 SERVICES, S;rAre.OF CAllF9R~tA:
HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CAf:.If.OR~I~

OEP.ARTM,OOOF ,
.

M~r
".

5

,

~~U:}~~:1:~~b~Ve':.':~~~ANrE~ ;":, ',,', "JQb~'~""~eiDallk

Callfomia Medi!=31 Assod.Stlon: CatiforTrla, HOsP.!tB1As$cdatiOnj. CaQforpi~ :,",_: ~ ~~~ ~ft. ~ '.

Dental Association: California'~on for AdUlt.,Day Sef'Yic!!tS;. ($8$ .--

. ,

",

attached) "

. , ' . " . " , . ~: ., . . ' " '

YOl:'~30CALENDARDA~Sa1te~~S~DR5~f"'·~.... ~on·YOl;lfufll••writt8.~.n::s~atth.cou-:tand~a .

. C01))l aefWId on ~ IlIaIntiff. A letter OJ' phone c~alh'flll not ~you. Y~,~",,~ must be'''' prOJ)WIegai'foIm 1f. you want~

court to hear your CUll.. ThanI may,be a caul'!- ~ 1'tIatyou.~ use foryowlMp~. Vpu G.IIn &ftd I:IMI!M c:olll't forms and l1Iote .

fnfQmtaUEln at Itte C...if.,....'Cellf.'ts. Qnllne Setf.HeJp ~.f!-W~ca.govlsemt~lph yeul'eaUnty law I~", ot'tM csettlth8use

~~ yocr. If you can~ pay '!he flUng fee, ask·the court cIetk far 8M WliWr1orm. If you do not'fiI~ your responise on time, you may

10lHt thIjI case by default. and yow wageS, mOMf. Iftd p~perty tmIy be tatcmwlltloutfurther.waming:frorn the.court.

.'.

There.llfe other legal requil'l\\lllents. ,You may want to GllII an aCfomey rigtrt 1WaY' It.you do not knOw-ao:aftDrney,1OU.lnay ....{rt.1Q cell ..,

,

~ tefernli service. If yoU cannot Iffcm:l ;an aaom~.•,you may ba ..lgIbIe- for he legal.BIII'Vices.fmm a Mn-proflt legal sarvices program, You carr fOG1lte theII" nonP1Oftt gI'OUpI.at the California Legal ~ Web.1ta (wWW.lawhefpcarlfornla.olgl. the California'

CoI..t!1S Online, Self-Help Oontar (www.cour:tlnfo.ca·govhsam.etPI. or by cxm~tin9 your. k?cal cioutt or county' bar association.

.' .

JIll. . TieoBlO DlAS Or;' CAL.EIIDARlO desp~ de quo Ie ~"M1a ~ Ypapiilu JegaJu par.t ~tar una re.rspuesta 'par esC1fto , en asfa corla Y Ir.JCIU' qun:e entregue UIJ& copj8 aI·demanflante. Una t:.IU"II 0 IIsm;,,1a telf1f6nlca no 10. Ptotegen'. SU ntlSpUU'ill por

ec flSCdto tiene que estar en formrt!o IJIgiIf aGI'rtIf;to lSi tIeI!;;ee 9U""pta ell' • 'SU CNO en hi c::orle. posib/e _ fV)'e un fonnutarlo que listed

I.,.. pINIda trSar,Pltlli*,suI'eSl)UeSta. Puet»enconflw".tfuJ"/bnnUllltfosdol. QqIfItymd.!,n1btrrrad6n flr/ftfeentro de Ayuda de IlJs;COJ1!1dIi""

Calltomia (wwW.eOUfflrJfo.t:iI;govI5~. en flllJlOllofJK:a de

dfl3¥ condedo &) en hi com Que Ie quede.,.s.QlftCIt. SJ no, I

puea. fJI.IIJiIT I. (NOta'de ptW!iIM!tad6n, pl. 111 StICIetsdo de Ia. i::ode que' "'. df un 'fti~'~ e«1itr:l6n de psgo dfI .~ Sfno presenta

$(1 ITISpuasIB a t/Wrrpo, puedept/IJfdeI' eI caso pol" Irrcumpllmlen~ , iii'aotflJ Ie podri ql/ifW.su.sueteta'. df'nero y blel18lf sf". ".,as IIKMti1enc:hr..

em para Hay ofrDs, t1tqldSitos 1eg;J/es. Ell ~/• .que llame./ll un ~ InirMd1afamenta. SI no COIlOCC a: un IIbogado, puede llIImar Ii un

servicio de remi$lOn a abogados. SI no p..... pagat'.8 lJbOgafIo, ,_ pos!bIe qllfl turrtpla corr/oll ntqrJislros

ODIetJ8f' sB,vICIos,

'

A,.- legales gfMuifos de un plDgrantll de 1JIJrvtr:i0lS /fJIgfI/eII; :rIn'fjnu de IUjs-o..PutIM MI:OIIrrar. utos·gI1.JJQ5 sin tines de IflCfO en eI aft/a Mtb de

0I-1ffl:Jm1a ~I :S"etYiOes. (www.I.wltelpcalffornla.OrgJ.- en "'~C.entru.:.*

de 'u"COftetr d. ~ftDm;a;," ..

,. .

. (lIIIWIN.coul1info.c.a.~~ o'poIIijnllOSe (VI contM:fo CO!J lacarle a aJ coI.f1Igio de aboga~ 1GC111es.·

·1

.

...

...

.. SUMMONS"

COGIII 01 CI(jI.~ liS 412.20."
1~~~.1

.. 05/05
CI.a[ s, e.

/22:000.8•8-cv1-30:358363-C13A1,S'0--5"M59A6N29

8 .

Document..

1

.

ALL
File, d

0S5T/A2R1"/A0.l8TY

PSVaCge.9'

of

88

Page IDPA#G:E9

E:l6/28

. . ~' ..

:,.,:",

•. ~

:>. :. _m~.to;SummOIl8·...

-" " .... .

"

. " .
... ': .,. .....; \.

¥ou.;m, being'suedbY p~'(~~~.

.

0.

. .

.

.'

Ameri~:C~Uege ~fEin.Cy Pliysi~.S.:Chapmr ~fCaHfo~ fu~.;·Cal:i~a·

Pbannacists Association, mltf:caJif.u.mia. ~sOcitiiion of~lic ;H-ospitals·.aDd: Health Systems

, . . '
,,.
.'
104n.J9.1

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 10 of 88 Page ID #:10
EXHIBIT - B

~5C/a~5s/e202~:808-1c3v:-50833631-3C1A05S5-9M62A9N8 Document 1

ALL STAR AnY SVC

PAGE 1218/28

Filed 05/21/08 Page 11 of 88 Page ID #:11 I

1 LLOYD A. BOOKMAN (State ~ar No. 89251)

BYRON 1. GROSS (S1ate Bar No. 76626)

2 JORPAN B. KEVILLE (State BaJ;' No. 217868)

HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, INC.

3 i.!~~::g:~=SuiteI600
4 Telephone: (310) 551-8111

CON'Q~Jt.~PY ~)2A\~_J~

Facsimile: (310) 551*8181

5 E-Mail:

.ikeville@.health-Iaw.com

. .
MAY 052Q08

6 7

CRAIO 1. CANNIZZO FELICIA YSZE (Stale
1I00PER, LUNDY &

(BBSaOtarOwNKoB.Ma2r3AN3No4.4, 17IN)03C1.9)Joib1.n,;.!\t.\ej~l~_~,h~N~t.~

575 Market St:reet, Suite 2300 .

8 San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 875-8500

9 Facs4ni1e: (415) 875-8519 E-Mail: ccanni~@health-law.com.

10

Attorneys for Petitioners

11

12 SUPERIOR COURT OF lRE STAn: OF CALIFO~
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14

15

CALIFORNIA 'MEDICAL ASSOCIATION;

16 CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION;

CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION;

17 CALIFORNIA AS~OCIATION FOR ADULT

DAY SERVICES;tAMERlCAN COLLEGE

18 OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, STATE

CHAPTER OF CALIFORNIA, INC.;

19 CALIFORNIA PHARMACISTS

ASSOCIATION. and CALIFORNIA

20 ASSOCIATION OF PUBUC HOSPITALS

AND HEALTII SYSTEMS

21

Petitioners,

CASE NO.

BC390126

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR (1) INJUNCTIVE RELlE~; (2) DECLARATORY;RELIEF;
(3) WRIT OF MANDAB;

22

VS.

23 SANDRA SlIEWRY, Director ofthe Depanment ofHealth Care Servioes~ State of
24 Calif'omia.; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTIf CARE SERVICES
25 Respondents.
26

27

28

1045819.7

,... ___~_ ,_.!_...... 'I .... _t...•

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 12 of 88 Page ID #:12

1

2

INTRODUCTION

3

1. California's Medicaid program, Medi-Call , is a major component ofthe "safety

4 nef' that ensures the State's poor have ~ess to health care services. Unfortunately for those who

5 depend on it to access basic hea1thcare services, the low rates at which the State currently pays 6 providers to care for Medi-Cal patients have created a gaping hole in that net. Health care 7 providers of virtually every type have been steadily leaving the Medi~CaI program or scaling back

8 services because the rates they are being paid are not even sufficient to cover the costs they incur

9 in providing services. The exodus ofproviders from the program is leaving massive numbers of

10 Californians without access to critical services or is forcing them to obtain care in the already

11 over-crowded and increasingly scarce emergency departments ofhospitals throughout the state.

12 Despite this disturbing state ofaffairs, California has decided to reduce Medi-Cal rates again,

13 without regard to the impact of these reductions.

14

2. The deterioration of the California safety net is perhaps most evident in Los

15 Angeles County, where, in some areas, the healthcare system is now in crisis. Emergency room

16 and hospital closures in Los Angeles County make Los Angeles County especially vulnerable to 17 reductions in Medi-Cal payments. As other providers limit their participation in the Medi-Cal 18 program, increasing numbers ofpatients will seek care at Los Angeles County's remaining

19 emergency rooms, which will have to struggle operationally and financially to care for them.

20

3. By this action, several groups of Medi-Cal providers (physicians, hospitals.

21 dentists, adult day health. care centers ("ADHCs"), and pharmacies) seek mandate relief and an

22 injunction to invalidate and stop the implementation of a ten percent cutback in Medi-Cal rates 23 that was recently mandated by the California Legislature and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 24 2008. This decrease in payments will drastically impair payments to, and accordingly, 25 participation, by physicians, dentists. phannacies, hospitals. ADHCs and many other providers of

26 27 1 For the purposes oftbis pleading, the tenn "Medi-Cal" is used to encompass all components of
the California Medi-Cal program, including Denti-Cal.
28

10458J9.7

2
Com~laint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate
..

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 13 of 88 Page ID #:13

1 health services, creating significant gaps in access for Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

2

4. The Legislature decided to address its budgetary woes by unlawfully taking funds

3 away from the Medi-Cal program~ without regard to t.he impact on providers, the availability of

4 Medi-Cal services to those who depend most on th~, and the deteriorating safety net in

5 Califonria.

6

5. Such a reduction is illegal because California failed to fulfill its legal mandate to

7 ensure that Medi-Cal payment rates are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that beneficiaries

8 have access to health care services to the extent such services are available to the general public.

9 The rates are invalid as the State faiJed to ensure that those rates are consistent with efficiency,

10 economy, quality ofcare and sufficiency ofaccess. The State further violated state and federal

11 law by enacting the rate reduction without the proper public process required for rate adjustments

12 and without the required annual review and revision ofreimbursement rates. In fact, by its tenns,

13 the rate reduction requires an amendment to the California Medi-CaI State Plan, which may not be

14 implemented prior to federal approval. Lastly, the rate reduction is illegal because it violated the

15 State Constitution by exceeding the scope ofthe Legislature's authority during the special session

16 in which it was enacted.

17

6. For these and other reasons, the ten percent rate reduction violates both California

18 and federal law. The imposition of this rate reduction will cause irreparable injury to Petitioners,

19 their members and the populations they serve, both providers and beneficiaries. Causing

20 providers ofservices to withdraw from the Medi-Cal program because reimbursement levels will

21 fall so far below the costs of providing se~ices, the rate reduction will threaten the health of

22 beneficiaries by interrupting provider/patient relationships and by resulting in the inability of

23 many beneficiaries to obtain necessary health care. Accordingly, Petitioners seek mandamus,

24 declaratory and injunctive reliefto prevent the mte reduction from taking effect.

25

26

THE PARTIES

27

7. Respondent THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE

28 SERVICES ("Department") is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a California governmental

1045819.7

3
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Reli~. Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate

I;

•

"'::

,;t'

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 14 of 88 Page ID #:14

10
08 '!'
~~ III
~~:i"ClO)II-I
~!Ilg!2
~o1Ii~:'"lI'(<-)x-~
I</Il<:ui.
z~o~I(\t.I;IJI :_
3• ~1 ;II::-l0~<",VI'I-II !5 W.J 1Il
0 0. 0
ooilt! !-!
J:- .:.i
bI
""

1 agency. The Department is the single state agency charged with the administrati~n of California's

2 Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. See California Welt: & Inst. Code §§ 14000 ei seq. The

3 Department is located in Sacramento, California.

4

8. Respondent SANDRA SHEWRY is the Director ofthe Department ("Directortl).

5 The Director is sued in her official capacity. Respondent Shewry's office is located in

6 Sacramento, California.

7

9. Petitioner CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIAnON ("CMA'') is a nonprofit,

8 incorporated professional association of more than 30,000 physicians practicing in the State of

9 California, with its principal office in Sacramento, California. CMA's membership includes

10 California physicians who are engaged in the private practice of medicine, in all specialties.

11 CMA's primary purposes are "to promote the science and art of medicine, the care and well-being

12 ofpatients, the protection ofthe public health, and the bettennent of the medical profession."

13 CMA brings this action on its own behalfand in its representative capacity on behalf of its

14 members, most of which are providers under Califomia's Medi-CaI program and will be directly

15 and adversely affected by the threatened rate reduction, and on behalfof its members' patients.

16

10. Petitioner CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ("CHA") is a trade

17 association representing the interests of hospitals in the State of California. CHA is incorporated

18 in the State ofCalifomia with its principal office in Sacramento, California. CHAts member

19 hospitals provide both inpatient and outpatient hospital services. In addition, many of CHA's

20 members operate special units, such as emergency departments or distinct part nursing writs

21 ("DPINFsJl) that provide skilled nursing care. CHA represents nearly 450 hospitals and health

22 systems throughout California, including general acute care hospitals, children's hospitals, ruraI

23 hospitals, psychiatric hospitals. academic medical centers, county hospitals, investor-owned

24 hospitals, and mu1ti~hospital health systems. These hospitals furnish vital health care services to

25 millions of our states' citizens CHA also represents more than 150 Executive, Associate and
26 Personal members. eHA brings this action on its own behalfand in its representative capacity on

27 behalfof its members, many ofwhich are providers under California's Medi-Cal program and 28 will be directly and adversely affected by the threatened rate reduction, and on behalf of its

1045819.7

4
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Reliet; Declaratory Relief and Writ of Mandate

...~

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 15 of 88 Page ID #:15

I members' patients.

2

11. Petitioner CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIAnON is a nonprofit, professional

3 association representing more than 22,000 dentists throughout the State of California. This

4 number reflects 72 percent ofall California licensed dentists. Founded in 1870, CDA is the

5 largest constituent member ofthe American Dental Association. CDA is incorporated in the State

6 ofCalifomia with its principal office in Sacramento, California. Through public policy.

7 advocacy, education and other means, CDA has promoted the health ofthe public, the profession

8 and the individuals it serves for over a century. CDA brings this action on its own behalf and in

9 its representative capacity on behalf ofits members, many of whom are providers under

10 California's Medi-Cal program and will be directly and adversely affected by the threatened rate

11 reduction, and on behalf of its members' patients.

12

12. Petitioner CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR ADULT DAY SERVICES

13 ("CAADS") is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit statewide association to support the de~elopment of adult

14 day services as an alternative to institutional care. CAADS is incorporated in the State of

15 California with its principal office in Sacramento, California. Established in 1977, CAADS is the 16 largest state association for adult day services in the natio~ representing more than 133 licensed 17 ADHC providers. CAADS is a membership-based association supported by dues, grants and 18 educational activities. CAADS members include providers, case managers, consultants, vendors

19 and others interested in supporting the mission ofthe organization. The vast majority ofthe 20 provider members own andlor operate ADHCs, which are licensed pursuant to the California 21 Adult Day Health Care Act. Health and Safety Code § 1570! et seq, and are a benefit under the 22 Medi-Cal PJ.:ogram pursuant to the Adult Day Health Medi-Cal Law, Welfare and Institutions 23 Code § 14520, et seq. ADHCs provide intensive day services through a rnulti-disciplinary team 24 of health and social services professionals to frail elderly and disabled persons, in order to 25 maintain their ability to reside in the community. Without such ADHC services, many ofthe 26 ADHC participants would, within a short period oftime, have to rely on emergency department 27 visits or be prematurely placed in a nursing facility. CAADS brings this action on its own behalf 28 and in its representative capacity on behalf ofits members, many ofwhich are providers rinder

10458]9.7

5
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ of Mandate '.

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 16 of 88 Page ID #:16

1 California's Medi-Cal program and will be directly and adversely affected by the threatened rate

2 reduction, and on behalf of its members' patients.

3

13. Petitioner AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, STATE

4 CHAPTER OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (CAUACEP) is an organization composed of more than 5 2~OOO emergency physicians in California. CAUACEP is incorporated in the State of California 6 with its principal office in Sacramento, California. Membership includes emergency physicians 7 who practice in a wide variety of settings including large and small groups, academic centers, and 8 managed care. CAUACEP brings this action on its own behalf and in its representative capacity

9 on behalfofits members, many of whom are providers under California's Medi-Cal program and

10 will be directly and adversely affected by the threatened rate reduction. and on behalfofits

Qj

-i0?':f0O0

I!I
11\

Ul

<Z'-"I1-!,0-O--

~ ; : EU:l: l O OI-' I

0Oml'i:l:i l0'1~~I&••.

~ ~ ~.

~ I" l.o~J__

3 Z

>~ -

z-
« l!'

- zI -oUr ln-

gill _0 /51l1..J1I'J
Ii. U

!'- ..,

::z:C-D

-
w.J

J-

11 members' patients.

12

14. Petitioner CALIFORNIA PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION C'CPHA") represents

13 more than 5,000 pharmacists in California. CPHA is incorporated in the State of California with

14 its principal office in Sacramento, California. It is the largest state professional association of

IS phannacists in the United States. Many of CPHA's members own or operate pharmacies in the

16 State of California, many of which are providers under California'S Medi-Cal program. The

17 mission of CPHA is to represent phannacists in all practice settings in the State, and to advocate

18 the role ofpharmacy as an essential venue of health care for patients. CPHA brings this action on

19 its own behalfand in its representative capacity on behalfof its members who will be directly and

20 adversely affected by the threatened rate reduction, and on behalfofthe Medi-Cal patients served

21 by its members.

22

15. Petitioner CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF P~LIC HOSPITALS AND

23 HEALTH SYSTEMS eCAPH', is a trade association representing 19 public hospital systems

24 throughout the state that are the core of the safety net. Though just six percent of all hospitals

25 statewide, CAPH members provide half of all hospital care to the state's 6.S million uninsured.

26 Two-thirds of patients seen by the public hospitals are Medi-Cal recipients or are uninsured. 27 CAPH members operate approximately 60 percent ofall top-level trauma centers and nearly 45

28 percent of all bum units. These public hospitals also deliver 11 million outpatient visits a year in

1045819.7

6
Complaint and Petition for Inj1.Dlctivc Relief, DeeJarutol)' RcJiefand Writ ofMandate
..

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 17 of 88 Page ID #:17

1 both hospital and non-hospital settings, where patients receive primary and specialty care. Public
of 2 hospitals' graduate medical education programs train almost half all new physicians in
3 California. CAPH is incorporated in the State of California with its principal office in Oakland, 4 California. CAPH brings this action on its own behalfand in its representative capacity on behalf 5 ofits members, all ofwhich are providers under California's Medi-Cal program. and will be 6 directly and adversely affected by the threatened rate reduction, and on behalfof its members'

7 patients.

8

16. Petitioners CMA. CHA~ CDA, CAADS, CAl)ACEP. CPHA, and CAPH are

(II
, • 0
°0~~ III
l~~gii~11'1 I"I'I .... 0

0':01 ., 0mb" '1<o)~(

1</1:0:0.

~

/It,"
1«1i.i.,l_-

Z)o:z 3~o«tp

t-il/-

.2: 0 III

W1r1Ull.J

1n
.....

0.. III 0

0 .... 0111

E.

l : - oJ

III I-

9 hereinafter referred to collectively as Associational Petitioners.

10

11

FEDERAL MEDICAID LAW

12

17. Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq., the Medicaid Act,

13 authorizes federal financial support to states for medical assistance to low-income persons who
14 are aged, blind, disabled, or members of families with dependent children. The program is jointly

15 financed by the federal and state governments and administered by the states, with the federal
16 financial participation level currently ranging between 50 to 83 percent. The states~ in accordance
17 with federallaw~ decide eligible beneficiary groups~ types and ranges ofservices, payment level

18 for services, and administrative and operative procedures. Payment for services is made directly

19 by states to the individuals or entities that furnish the services. 42 C.F.R. § 430.0.

20

18. In order to receive matching federal financial participation, states must agree to

21 comply with the applicable federal Medicaid law and regulations, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq. Once

22 a state has decided to participate in the Medicaid program, compliance with the federal Medicaid

23 law and regulations is mandatory.

24

19. At the state level, the Medicaid program is administered by a single state agency,

25 which is charged with the responsibility of establishing and complying with a state Medicaid plan
26 (the "State Plan~') that, in tum, must comply with the provisions of the applicable federal

27 Medicaid law. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(5) and 42 C.F.R. §§ 430.10 and 431.10. The State Plan

28 must be submitted to the Secretary ofthe United States Department of Health and Human

1045819.7
., "

7

. Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Writ of Mandate

~

~

:j:

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 18 of 88 Page ID #:18

III

0~'I00O

'l' iii

III

Zo(~-I...O. ~0

;E:::Iol'I

:x:: III 0 -

8I:Di~~V~x

K6zI~<~f.l41!i :_•

< • ;::)a:ZIO
...J ::>
!-",• Z 0 III

ffibl..,llll

a. u 0

~ I..I.I.

I_')

III '"'

.w../
f-

1 Services (the "Secretary") for approval and must describe the policies and methods to be used to

2 set payment rates for each type ofservice included in the state Medicaid plan. 42 C.F.R. §§

3 430.1 0 and 447.201(b). Changes to the State Plan may not be implemented by the state prior to

4 being approved by the Secretary.

5

20. Each State's Medicaid plan must provide that medical assistance will be furnished

6 with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals. 42 V.S.C § 1396a(a)(8) [hereinafter

7 "Section (a)(8)"] .

8

21. For hospitals and certain other institutional providers) states must establish rates

9 through a public process that includes: (a) publication ofproposed rates, the methodologies

10 underlying the establishment of such rates, and justifications for the rates; (b) a reasonable

11 opportunity for comment on the proposed rates, methodologies and justifications by providers,

12 beneficiaries and their representativest and other concerned State residents; and (c) publication of

13 the final rates. the methodologies underlying the establishment ofsuch rates, and justifications for

14 such final rates. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13); 42 C.F.R. § 447.205.

15

22. Each state's Medicaid plan must "provide such methods and procedures ...

16 relating to the utilization of, and the payment for, care and services available under the p]an which

17 may be necessary ... to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality 18 ofcare and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under 19 the plan at least to the extent that such c(JJ'e and services are available Jo the general public in the

20 geographic area . ... " 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) [hereinafter "Section (aX30)(A)"](emphasis

21 added).

22

23. fu addition to Section (a)(30)(A), the federal Medicaid regulations establishing

23 requirements for Medicaid reimbursement rates state that, "payments must be sufficient to enlist

24 enough providers so that services under the plan are available to recipients at least to the extent

2S that those services are available to the generalpublic." 42 C.F.R. § 447.204 (emphasis added).

26

27

CALIFORNIA MEDI-CAL PROGRAM

28

24. The State ofCalifomia has elected to participate in the Medicaid program.

1045819.1

8

Complaint

and

Petition

for

Injunctive
.

Relief,

Declaratol")'

Relief and,,Writ

of

Mandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 19 of 88 Page ID #:19

1 California has named its program "Medi-Cal," See Cal. Welf. & Inst Code §§ 14000 et seq.; 22

2 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 50000 et seq.

3

25. Medi-Cal healthcare payments are disbursed in two ways. The first is ~ "fee for

4 selVice" process whereby the Department determines whether the healthcare services were

5 covered and furnished to an eligible beneficiary, and, ifso, pays the service providers directly.

6 Alternatively, the Department administers Medi-Cal through various managed care models

7 operated by public and private entities under contract.

S

26. In 1982, the California Legislature authorized the Department to enter into

9 contracts with selected hospitals to furnish inpatient services in accordance. with the terms set

10 forth in those contracts. The system is known as the selective provider contracting program

11 ("SPCP"). See Cal. Welf. and Inst Code § 14081 et seq. The hospitals pursuant to the SPCP are

12 often referred to as "contract hospitals·1 and generally are paid based on negotiated per diem rates

13 for inpatient services furnished by the hospital. Hospitals that do not have SPCP contracts are

14 referred to herein as "noncontract hospitals" and are paid directly by the Department from the fee

15 for service program.

16

27. State law reinforces the Department's mandatory duty to comply with the State Plan

17 pursuant to Title 22, California Code of Regulations, section S0004(b)(l), which specifically

18 requires that the Department "administer the Medi-Cal program in accordance with .•• [t]he State

19 Plan under Title XIX ofthe Social Security Act" See also Welf. & lnst. Code § 14100.1.

20 Accordingly, the Department is required to administer the Medi-Ca1 program in accordance with:

21 (1) the State Plan; (2) applicable California law, as specified in the Welfare and Institutions Code;

22 (3) Medi-Cal regulations; and (4) federal Medicaid law and regulations.

23

28. The California State Plan requires that the Department's payments under the Medi-

24 Cal program be "sufficient to enlist enough providers so that services WIder the plan are available

25 to recipients at least to the extent that those services are available to the general population."

26

29. With respect to non-institutional services. pursuant to the State Plan, the State can

27 make II[n]o modification in method or amount of payment, .. which does not meet all applicable

28 reqtrlrements of42 CFR Part 447." Although the State Plan does permit rate adjustments required

1045819.7

9

Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Reli~ Declaratory Relief and Writ ofMandate

-~.-'"

.
,

F
.;....

..

,•.;~ ..;

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 20 of 88 Page ID #:20

ill

=1-0 0'

0 0

Ii'

rn

~w 11\
1- ..... 0-

8~c-iU8l~-
rJla'~:>01()x~..

l4~ri·

53z>"~1'!.1J<..J1""'---

1-0)-

O:-:

.Z..

0
..J

IIIIII

aOI.i.Jr-1tJ-Il

0 ;;;

:O:ato-

-
..w..J.

1 by state statute "only when the applicable requirements of42 C.F.R. Part 447 are met."

2

30. With respect to non-institutional services. the California State Plan also requires the

3 Department. when setting rates, to (1) develop an evidentiary base or rate study resulting in the

4 determination ofa proposed rate, (2) present the proposed rate at a public hearing to gather public

5 input, (3) determine the flnal rate based on the evidentiary base including the pertinent public

6 input, and (4) establish the payment rate through adoption ofregulations specifying such rates.

7

31. The California Legislature has independently stressed that all eligible Medi-Cal

8 beneficiaries receive necessary care and has established a system designed to ensure that

9 physicians and other bealth care providers will be available to render this care:

10

The Legislature intends that Medi-Cal recipients have

11

reasonable access to medical care services and especially to primary

12

and maternity care services. In order to obtain such access, the

13

Legislature intends that, to the extent feasible and permitted by

14

federal law, physicians be reimbursed equally statewide for

15

comparable services, at a rate szifficient to provide Medi-Cal

16

recipients with such reasonable access. and also intends that higher

17

rates be paid, relatively, for providing primary and maternity care

18

services.

19

(Welf & Inst. Code § 14075 {emphasis addedJ.)

20 Accordingly. the Legislature created a procedure to ensure that Medi-Cal beneficiaries have

21 reasonable access to physician and dental services. WeIf. & Inst. Code § ]4079. State law
22 requires that Medi-Cal fee for service rates be adopted pursuant tothe regulatory process and 23 requires that the Department annually review Medi-Cal rates for physician and dental services, 24 taking into account annual Consumer Price Index cost increases, reimbursement levels under 25 Medicare and other third party payors, prevailing customary charges and other factors. Welf. &
26 lnst Code § 14079. Based on these reviews, the Legislature mandated that the Department revise
27 reimbursement rates ''to physicians and dentists to ensure reasonable access ofMedi-Cal

28 beneficiaries...." ld

1045819.7

10

Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Writ of Mandate

I

I

.~

~,

)-

"'';;

"!~

.....

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 21 of 88 Page ID #:21

1

2

MEDI-CAL PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS

3

32. Payments from the Medi-CaI fee for service program to providers are governed by

4 various statutes, regulations, the State Plan, and in some instances, informal handbooks, manuals

«)
, 03;.11001 In
il:-,..o zw -1/1 <ji&lgl !2- .
I0OI':al0)~1«UX~..
I6lCui.
.z:~3,II~.jIl:..<.Z~""_-C-'D
~ ~ ;;
DW:"u'..I1~n
a.. 1/1 0
o0,.. ;:; III ~
::t- .:.i
Ld I-

5 or bulletins.

6

33. Specific payments for different providers include the following:

7

a. Physician Services: Medi-Cal pays physicians for their services pursuant

8

to a physician services fee schedule. Physician payment rates are set forth

9

in 22 C.C.R. § 51503.

10

b. Dental Services: Medi-Cal pays dentists for their services pursuant to a

11

dental services fee schedule. Dental rates are set forth in 22 C.C.R. §§

12

51506,51506.1 and 51506.2, but do not accurately reflect the most recent

13

rate changes. The current dental rates can be found in the Denti-Cal

14

Schedule of Maximum Allowances in the Denti-Cal Program Provider

15

Handbook andlor the Denti-Cal Provider Bulletin, Volume 24~ Number 1.

16

c. Pharmacy ServicesIDrugs: Payment rates to pharmacies are governed by

17

Welfare and Institutions Code § 14lO5.45. Pharmacy reimbursement under

18

Medi-Cal is unique in that it is composed oftwo distinct components:

19

payment for the ingredient cost ofth.e drug product dispensed, plus a

20

professional dispensing fee.

21

d. Hospital ServiceslHealtb Systems:

22

i. Payments for inpatient hospital services to nODcontract hospitals are

23

governed by 22 C.C.R. §§ 51545-51556 and Attachment 4.19-A to the State

24

Plan. Hospitals are reimbursed the lowest oftheir reasonable costs

2S

determined using Medicare reasonable cost principles, an all-inclusive rate

26

per discharge based on cumulative annual adjustments to a base rate, the

27

60th percentile rate per discharge of hospitals in the same peer group, or

28

customary charges. Hospitals receive interim payments throughout each

J0458 19.7

Manda7 11
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Dec~ Relief and Writ of

••••

-II'

•

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 22 of 88 Page ID #:22

1

year which are an estimate ofthe final reimbursement due the hospital.

2

Final reimbursement is detennined based on a cost report submitted by the

3

hospital after the close ofits fiscal year.

4

it Payments for outpatient hospital services are addressed at 22 C.C.R.

5

§ 51509. In general, specific rates are established for the use ofhospital

6

facilities and hospitals are paid for other services, such as laboratory or

7

radiology services. at the rates that are payable to non-hospital providers.

8

Payments provided in certain hospital outpatient departments are governed

9

10

...
IlJ

11

og G,I
- - ~~ III III
~ .!..:r-O' x:"'ge ::5::;)1()-

12 13

mo0'~i:ll(~»~"Il.

14

:KZfJ:Hii>~i<:ezi.iI'9-•-1-",-

15
16

- Z 0 III

gUl _ ffilll..lUl
fl. U 0

17

Qr-) .ti.l,

.. :r- .:.; 111

18

19

20

21

22

23

by Welfare and Institutions Code §14105.24. iii. Payments for services provided by DPlNFs are governed by 22 C.C.R. § 51511 and Attachment 4.19-D to the State Plan. Reimbursement is the lower ofthe hospital's projected costs ofproviding DPINF services~ or a statewide per diem rate computed by the Department. iv. Payments for publicly-owned hospitals and the governmental entities with which they are affiliated (health systems) that provide a spectnnn ofnon-hospital services include, but are not limited to, those which are governed by Welfare and Institutions Code § 14105.24, and 22 CCR §§ 51503.1,51507,51507.1,51507.2, and 51509.1. e. Adult Day Health Care Servif!es: Medi-Cal pays ADHCs $76.22 as a bundled per diem payment for services. 22 C.C.R. § 54501 does not reflect the current reimbursement rate for ADHCs. Reimbursement rates for ADHC services may be found in the Inpatient/Outpatient Manual, Part 2. Petitioners maintain the right to supplement this description ofand authority cited for

24 reimbursement rates.

25

34. The Legislature has not enacted any "across-the-board" increases in the Medi-Cal

26 payment rates for non-institutional services during the last two decades, despite the fact that the

27 costs of furnishing health care have increased dramatically dming that same time.

28

10458J9.7

12
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Reliet; Declaratory Reliefand Writ of Mandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 23 of 88 Page ID #:23

1

THE TEN PERCENT RATE REDUCTION

2

35. On January 10,2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued a Fiscal Emergency

3 Proclamation pursuant to Section IO(t) ofArticle IV of the Constitution ofthe State ofCalifornia,

4 at the same time he proposed his budget for fiscal year 2008-09. The Governor determined that

5 the General Fund revenues for fiscal Year 2007-08 will decline substantially below the estimate

6 ofGeneral Fund revenues upon which the 2007 Budget Bill was based. Accordingly, the

7 Governor declared a fiscal emergency based on the projected budget imbalance and insufficient

8 cash reserves for Fiscal Year 2007-08 and the projected insufficient cash reserves and potential

9 budgetary and cash deficit in Fiscal Year 200S"()9. The Governor caused the Legislature to

10 assemble in special session to address the fiscal emergency.

11

36. The Governor's budget proposed to save approximately $668 million from the

12 General Fund from reductions to provider reimbursements for fISCal year 2008-09. an amount

13 which is in dispute. Even assuming the accuracy ofthe Governor's estimate, the true impact of

14 the rate reduction, accounting for loss ofmatching Federal ftmds. may be approximately $1.336

15 billion.

16

37. The LAO recommended that the Legislature reject the Governor's proposed

17 reductions for nearly all providers. The LAO described physician rates as not having changed

18 since the Legislature granted rate increases in the 2000-01 budget year, though medical costs

19 continue to increase. The LAO :further acknowledged evidence that the rates paid to providers

20 can positively affect access to care. For example, the LAO cited a study which suggested that

21 Medicaid rates had an effect on access as well as beneficiaries' perception of quality ofcare. On

22 this basis. the LAO concluded that further rate reductions could further limit access to primary

23 care in Medi-Cal and the other DHCS programs and may cause a shift to the utilization of costlier

24 sources ofcare, diminishing the net savings to the state.

25

38. On February 16, 2008, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill X3 5 ("AB

26 5") in special session. Section 14 ofsaid Act added Section 14105.19 to the Welfare and

27 Institutions Code, which provides in relevant part, as follows:

28

/045819.1

13

, Complaint and Petition for lqjunctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandatc

A- ".

",:'..

~

..,.:'..
... 0"·

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 24 of 88 Page ID #:24

III

-~0•UI00

'l'
1/1

;<i!.:,.:&;1-~/1

::t: ;) 0 I')

I!Ooint:U~!,I.lI: 00~1 ~I-"I.

14 ..: ori •

=:II: III
1z3 !« .J -
3_a::~::l1:~Q<ii')i

0W::11U1..1

111
~

81;;0. In 0 !:!.

:1:- ..w.J.

1

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of [aw, in order to

2

implement changes in the level offunding for health care services,

3

the director shall reduce provider payments as specified in this

4

section.

5

(b)(l) Except as provided in subdivision (c), payments shall be

6

reduced by 10 percent for Medi·CaI fee for service benefits for dates

7

of service on or after July I, 2008

8

9

(e) Notwithstanding Chapter 3.5 (commencing with section

10

11340) ofPart 1 ofDivision 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code,

11

the department may implement this section by means ofprovider

12

bulletin, or similar instruction, without taking regulatory action.

13

14

(g) The department shall promptly seek any necessary federal

15

approvals for the implementation ofthis section.

16 A copy of AB 5 is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Petition.

17

39. Pursuant to paragraph (b)(l) of Welfare and Institutions Code § 14105.19,

18 payments under the Medi-Cal fee for service program for physicians, dentists, pharmacies,

19 ADHCs, clinics, health systems and other providers will be reduced by ten percent for services

20 provided on or after July 1,2008. The rate reduction will also impact inpatient services furnished 21 by noncontract hospita1s~ outpatient services furnished by all hospitals; and DPINF seIVices.

22

40. Pursuant to section IS ofAB 5, the Legislature also enacted Welfare and

23 Institutions Code § 14166.245, which reduces payments to noncontract hospitals for inpatient

24 services furnished on or after July 1, 2008, by ten percent. This is accomplished by reducing

25 interim payments for inpatient hospital services furnished by noncontract hospitals on or after

26 July I, 2008, by ten percent, and by limiting the final reimbursement for each patient day of

27 inpatient hospital services furnished on or after July 1,2008, to 90% ofthe hospitalfs audited

28 allowable cost per day.

.1045819.1 -.

14
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ of Mandate

.•..

. ~.

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 25 of 88 Page ID #:25

1

41. The rate and payment reductions set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code sections

2 141 05. 19(b)(1) and 14166.245 are referred to herein as "the Ten Percent Rate Reduction."

3

42. Pursuant to section 13 of AB 5, the Legislature enacted Welfare and Institutions

4 Code § 14041.1, which granted the Department the authority to "hold for a period of one month

5 ..• payments to providers ... for health care services" provided to beneficiaries ofthe Medi-Cal

6 program. This authority is limited to one month ending prior to January 1,2009. The

7 Department generally pays providers for health care services provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries 8 on an at least once-per~month basis. Due to the budget impasse in 2007, payments to Medi-Cal

9 institutional providers were delayed for 52 days. For providers such as ADHCs which are heavily 10 dependent on Medi-CaI, the delay of even one payment can cause substantial operational and 11 financial difficulties.

12

43. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereon allege that, prior to enacting or

13 implementing AB 5, no studies or other analyses were conducted by the Legislature or by the 14 Department to determine the impact the Ten Percent Rate Reduction in rates would have on the
15 ability of Medi-Cal beneficiaries to have access to health care services to the same extent as the

16 general public. Petitioners are informed and believe and further allege that the Legislature has

17 long been aware that prior to and as of the date ofenactment ofAB 5, Medi-Cal beneficiaries did

18 not have adequate access to health care services.

19

44. Petitioners are infonned and believe and thereon allege that, prior to enacting or

20 implementing this statute, no studies or other analyses were conducted by the Legislature or by

21 the Department to determine whether the Medi-Cal payment rates resulting from the Ten Percent

22 Rate Reduction would be consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care or with the

23 costs ofproviding the services affected by the rate reduction.

24

25

THE TEN PERCENT RATE REDUCTION WILL EXACERBATE TIlE ACCESS

PROBLEMS ALREADY CAUSED BY INADEQUATE MEDI-CAL RATES

26

45. The Legislative Analyst's Office ("LAO") in 2001 acknowledged that "[d]espite

27

state and federal requirements, [the Department] has not conducted annual rate reviews or made

28

1045819.7
~.

15
Complaint and Petition for InjW1Ctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 26 of 88 Page ID #:26

1 periodic adjustments to Medi-Cal rates to ensure reasonable access to health care services." The

2 LAO concluded that "there is not a rational basis for Medi-Cal rates."

3

46. When the Legislature enacted a five percent rate decrease in 2003, there already

4 were significant problems with respect to beneficiary access to physician services. In 2003, :; nearly half ofall physicians in urban counties in California were unwilling to treat Medi-Cal 6 beneficiaries, not surprising as reimbursement rates often fail to cover the costs of providing

7 services to these patients. According to a 2004 study ofMedi-Cal access in urban counties 8 published by the Medi-Cal Policy Institute, an independent source of information on the Medi-Cal

9 program that is funded by the Californja HealthCare FoUndation, only 50% ofprimary care

10 physicians, 55% ofmedical specialists and 52% of surgical specialists accepted Medi-Cal patients

11 in their practices.

12

47. The same 2004 study determ.i.iled that the percentage of Medi-Cal participating

13 physicians who were willing to accept new Medi-Cal patients into their practice was low. Among

14 physicians accepting new patients into their practices, only 55% ofprimary care physicians, 48% 15 ofmedical specialists and 43% ofsurgical specialists were willing to accept any Medi-Cal

16 patients.

17

48. The study also showed that physician services are not available to Medi-Cal

18 beneficiaries to the same degree that they are available to the general population. The number of

19 available primary care physicians per capita for Medi-Cal beneficiaries in 2001 was one-third less

20 than for the general population. The number ofmedical specialists available per capita for Medi21 Cal beneficiaries in 2001 was one-halfless than for the general population. The number of 22 surgical specialists available per capita for Medi-Cal beneficiaries in 2001 was two-thirds less

23 than for the general population.

24

49. Overall, the ratio ofprimary care physicians available for Medi-Cal beneficiaries in

25 2001 (46 per 100,000) was well below the workforce standards established by the Health 26 Resources Services Administration (which recommends 60 to 80 per 100,000) according to a

21 2003 study published by the Medi-Cal Policy Institute.

28

50. The access problems extant in 2004 have only worsened with time. It is now

1045819.7

16 Complaint aJld Petition for Injunctive Relief;. Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate
~:
. . :t- ••
~

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 27 of 88 Page ID #:27

1 virtually impossible for Medi-Cal beneficiaries in many areas ofthe state to find specialty

2 physicians, such as urologists, cardiologists and neurologists, that will take them on as patients or

3 at least find such specialty care in a timely manner. These specialty physicians have effectively

4 dropped out ofMedi-Cal solely because the payment rates are inadequate. For example, the

5 LAO recently cited a study ofotolaryngologists in Southern California which found that fewer

6 than 50 percent ofthe practicing physicians would accept appointments with children enrolled in

7 fee for service Mew-Cal. afthe physicians who would not accept new appointments, 90 percent

8 cited low reimbursement rates as a reason. While the cost of practicing medicine has increased,

9 reimbursement rates have remained stagnant, failing to compensate physicians for the costs 10 related to providing services.

;;;

-0~•IO00

'!'
III

~~:CiI:5~lI"IgI o~I-II

0':01 ..
cOaIl:l<oX~

... - b~ ~::.

:Z::J ....

~<.~.1:_

a: /::

Z
1-

<I.I)

ffi .. o-20
a. IJ .J

r1n11
0

01;IQ; ~-

:c- .w:;

r-

11

51. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction to physician rates will force physicians who

12 currently treat Medi-Cal patients to limit the services they provide to Medi-Cal patients and/or

13 accelerate the exodus of physicians from the Medi-Cal program.

14

52. Like physicians, hospitals are also heavily impacted by low Medi-Cal

15 reimbursement rates. California hospitals, and emergency departments ("ED") in particular, are

16 failing at an alarming rate. Between 1995 and 2005, 85 California hospitals closed while. Four

17 more hospitals closed in 2007. These hospitals and ED closures have resulted from a variety of

18 factors, not the least ofwhich is inadequate reimbursement rates from all manner ofpayors,

19 including Medi-Cal. One of the most troubling repercussions ofthe elimination. ofavailable

20 California hospitals is the increased strain it has placed on the hospitals and EDs that have

21 managed to remain in operation. To illustrate, in Los Angeles County, the nmnber of uninsured

22 and low income patients visiting area hospitals has increased by roughly one-third since 2002.

23 Area EDs are often filled beyond capacity, leading to sometimes extraordinarily long wait times

24 (reportedly as long as 11 hours in some places) and less-than-optimal care.

25

53. Existing access problems for Medi-Cal patients also have contributed to the ED

26 . overcrowding crisis. EDs are being visited with increasing frequency for non-emergency
27 conditions by patients with health insurance, including Medi-Cal, resulting in higher costs for the 28 State. In a 2006 study performed by the California Healthcare Foundation, Medi-Cal patients

1045819.7

17
Complaint and P~tion for Injunctive Relict; Declaratory Relief and Writ of Mandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 28 of 88 Page ID #:28

1 identified the inability to easily access routine care from physicians as one of the main reasons for

2 frequent ED visits. Medi-Cal patients also identified a perceived increased inability to obtain

3 specialty care as a reason for visiting hospital BDs, rather than seeking care in a physicians office.

4 Care rendered in a hospital emergency department typically is more expensive than comparable

5 services provided in a physician's office or outpatient clinic.

6

54. These problems are only likely to worsen with further decreases in Medi-Cal

7 payment rates. The increase in doctors leaving Medi-Cal creates a void in available care that faIls

8 on already overtaxed hospitals will only continue. However, as the recent hospital. closures

9 illustrate, hospitals simply do not have the resources to fill the void.

10

55. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that certain California

III

0' ;!i

0 l0l)

I!'
1/1

-~w";'i1...O. 01~-/1

e :t: u:8

8Ul ~I4- Dm~~X..

?516~:i.
z~0~( o:J:_

3":,:2.1:<w'

1-111-

15 ... a. 0 -

Z

0 ....1

I11I1)

(J

e x00 :;-11;1

-
..J

.I.I.I

11 hospitals, particularly smaller hospitals in rural areas, will either hav~ to close their doors or

12 curtail their services, including services furnished to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, if the Ten Percent

13 Rate Reduction goes into effect This will have a devastating effort on the access of individuals

14 in the areas in which these hospitals are located to hospital care, particularly Medi-Cal

15 beneficiaries who often do not have other means to travel significant distances to obtain services.

16

56. Access to dental services is also a problem for Medi-Cal beneficiaries. A 2007

17 publication by the California HealthCare Foundation identified difficulty finding a dentist who

18 serves Denti-Calpatients as a barrier to the use of the Denti-Cal program.. The State estimates

19 that 4,000 dentists provide 97% ofthe services reimbursed by the ~enti-Cal program. Denti-Cal

20 payments were much lower than the fees charged by general practice dentists, among the lowest

21 of all the state Medicaid programs. Despite dental benefits coverage, 13 percent of Denti-Cal

22 beneficiaries bad never been to a dentist, compared to only 5 percent for those with. private or

13 employment-based insurance and 9.1 percent for those without dental insurance. Rates of usage

24 of dental benefits were significantly lower than the use ofother medical benefits. Having Denti-

2S Cal coverage "is not the same as having access to dental care."

26

57. A 2008 report by the California HealthCare Foundation determined that Denti-Cal

27 beneficiaries, aged 0-11 years, were the least likely to have ever seen the dentist compared to

28 those with other insurance types. The only children who had less frequent dentist visits were

1045819.7

18
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Reliehnd Writ of Mandate
.. .~..

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 29 of 88 Page ID #:29

1 children without dental insurance.

2

58. ADHCs are disproportionately reliant on Medi-Cal for reimbursement because

3 approximately 90% of the beneficiaries served are eligible for Medi-Cal. Access to ADHC

4 services has been limited by inadequate reimbursement as evidenced by the lack of any ADHC

5 program in 24 counties. For example, in 2008, an ADHC program closed in Placer COWlty after

6 16 years ofoperation due to financial hardship. Similarly, in 2007, a program closed in'the City

7 of Cypress after four years of operation and a program closed in Oakland after 21 years of

8 operation due to financial hardship. Another program closed in Butte County after three years of 9 operation due to financial hardship.

III

~

ti8 ~IQ III

-:i

III
1w-,..-0

~<C'5Q180 ~-

20":0) ..

111
b

j<u:>it(

i· ~IIIt;i ;l-

3z0;>:-,

Ill:
Z<<'0

ff.i

.~..

II
..1

;;:;
III

n. U S

8E ~
:x:- .J

.II.J.

10

59. Any reduction in Medi-Cal payments will have a devastating affect on the ability of

11 ADHCs to continue to provide services. Implementation ofthe Ten Percent Rate Reduction to

12 payments to ADHCs is estimated to result in additional significant number of additional closures

13 estimated to be as high as 1/3 ofthe existing programs. The LAO acknowledged that ifrate

14 reductions force ADHCs to close, beneficiaries who rely on ADHC services to stay in their homes

15 may be forced to enter into relatively more costly nursing homes.

16

60. Traditionally, a significant majority of retail community pharmacies have

17 participated as Medi-Cal providers. Two recent studies on the adequacy ofthe Medi-Cal

18 pharmacy dispensing fee, including one commissioned by the Department, have concluded the

19 current fee is not adequate to cover the cost of dispensing for the average pharmacy. In addition,
20 changes in federal and state law within the last two years will result in reductions in drug

21 ingredient cost reimbursement. These changes have reduced the ability ofphannacies to fill

22 Medi-Cal prescriptions profitably.

23

61. Implementation of the Ten Percent Rate Reduction to phannacies will result in

24 many products being reimbursed at levels that are below acquisition costs for nearly all

25 pharmacies, both chain and independent. As a result, pharmacies will be forced to close their

26 doors, decline to fill prescriptions for Medi-Cal beneficiaries or selectively fill only those

27 prescriptions for which reimbursement covers their acquisition cost. In areas where a significant

28 portion ofthe patients are Medi-Cal beneficiaries, the pharmacies will have little choice but to

10458/9.7
~..-

19
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Deelaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate
"

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 30 of 88 Page ID #:30

1 close. The impact of this decrease in access will be felt particularly in rural and interwcity areas 2 where the number ofpharmacies is limited. In communities where there is only one pharmacy, 3 all residents, not just MediwCal beneficiaries, will be affected. The decrease in access to 4 prescription medications will drive patients to hospital emergency rooms to obtain their 5 medications or for treatment as their medical conditions worsen~ driving up overall costs to the

6 Medi--Cal program.

7

62. The Legislature's passage ,of an additional the Ten Percent Rate Reduction will

8 cause numerous providers to further reduce the services they currently provide to Medi·Cal 9 beneficiaries or cease caring for Medi-Cal beneficiaries at all. As a result, Medi-Cal beneficiaries'

10 access to healthcare services will be further impaired, causing a ripple effect across the health

iii 11 care landscape.

12

13

RESPONDENTS' VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW

14

63. Petitioners are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that respondents have

15 violated, and continue to violate the State Plan, California Medi-Cal regulations and federal

16 Medicaid statutes and regulations by failing to analyze Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for the

17 services affected by the Ten Percent Rate Reduction to ensure that those rates are sufficient to 18 ensure that beneficiaries ofthe Medi-Cal program have access to services to the same extent as 19 the general public. The MediwCaJ rates currently paid for physician, hospital, dentist, ADHC and'

20 pharmacy services do not afford Medi-Cal beneficiaries adequate access to services. The Ten

21 Percent Rate Reduction will only exacerbate this already severe access problem.

22

64. Violation ofthe State Plan: As mentioned above. the Department must follow the

23 State Plan as a Federal requirement for participation in the Medicaid program and pursuant to 22

24 C.C.R. § 50004. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not lawfully be

25 implemented as it violates the State Plan, and accordingly. State and Federal law. because:

26

a. Neither the Department nor the Legislature ensured that Medi·Cal payment

27

rates incorporating the Ten Percent Rate Reduction are sufficient to

28

establish equal access to services for Medi-CaJ·beneficiaries;

1045819.7

20
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive ReHe~ DecIarawry Reliefand Writ ofMandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 31 of 88 Page ID #:31

iii

- - !0!':C00I

I!'
iii

~.,...

1/1
r-O

:~x5:.~og-c

0 .. 01 ••

0m~" o0( ~x

S'z"~ol'ti('i;"ii :-•

ffi:.:J-.J~II!~Z~<'il1ilii

n..

III
u

.J

III
0

0o 'I"ii c-

... ::I:'"" wJ

1

b. With respect to non-institutional services. neither the Department nor the

2

Legislature (1) Developed an evidentiary base or rate study resulting in the

3

determination ofproposed rates incorporating the Ten Percent Rate

4

Reduction; (2) Presented the proposed rates incorporating the Ten Percent

5

Rate Reduction at a public hearing to gather public input; (3) Detennined

6

the final rates based on the evidentiary base including the pertinent public

7

input; or (4) established the payment rates incorporating the Ten Percent

8

Rate Reduction through adoption of regulations specifying such rates;

9

and/or

10

c. With respect to non-institutional services, the rate adjustments made by the

11

Ten Percent Rate Reduction otherwise fail to meet the requirements of 42

12

C.F.R. Part 447.

13

65. No State Plan Amendment: The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not

14 lawfully be implemented because it is inconsistent with and violates the State Plan, including. but

15 not limited to, Attachment 4.19-A ofthe State Plan as to hospital inpatient services and 16 Attachment 4.19-0 as to DP/NF services. The Department may not lawfully implement the Ten 17 Percent Rate Reduction unless and until it submits the necessary amendments to the State Plan to 18 the federal government and obtains federal approval of such amendments. The Department has 19 not submitted any State Plan Amendments to the federal government needed to implement the 20 Ten Percent Rate Reduction and has not obtained federal approval for the Ten Percent Rate

21 Reduction.

22

66. Violation ofCalifornia Statute: The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may

23 not lawfully be implemented because it violates Welfare and Institutions Code section 14079 by

24 mandating a rate reduction without the required annual review and corresponding revision of

25 reimbursement rates to "ensure reasonable access ofMedi-Cal beneficiaries."

26

67. Violation ofCalifomia Constitution: The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and

27 may not lawfully be implemented because it violates the California Constitution by exceeding the

28 Legislature'S authority during the special session called by Governor Schwarzenegger.

1045819.1

2]
Comp'laint and Petition fur Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate
..";.
':', 1-..: :

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 32 of 88 Page ID #:32

1

68. Violation of Federal Regulation: The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and

2 may not lawfully be implemented because it violates 42 C.F.R § 447.204 by failing to ensure that

3 "payments [are] sufficient to enlist enough providers so that services under the [State PIan1 are

4 available to recipients at least to the extent that those services are available to the general

5 population."

6

69. Violation ofPederal Statute: The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may

III

jg G!I

- ; ! III III
;~'!":102

~;)O!'l

:::°
) ~

0
CII

-
.,

)lO~IIO«~X

' l C11:1o11i .
l,. a>-:c~t :_

jll:ZIII

J:l<'
)00;ZOIll

J",,J1lI

~ Il.n) )1'
~~

-0 -
;;j
.:;

IIJ I-

7 not lawfully be imp~emented. because it violates federal Medicaid law because:

8

a. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction violates 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(aX30)(A)

9

because

10

i. The rates resulting from the Ten Percent Rate Reduction are not

11

consistent with efficiency. economy, and quality ofcare, and are not

12

sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services under the

13

c~~" Medi.Cal program are available at least to the extent that such

14

services ale available to the general population;

/

.

15

ii. Neither the Department nor the Legislature.:'cO~ldered the factors of

!

16

efficiency, economy, quality ofcare, and access to~rvices prior to enacting

17

the Ten Percent Rate Reduction;

18

iii. Neither the Department nor the Legislature demonstrated a

19

reasonable connection between the Ten Percent Rate Reduction and the

20

provision ofquality care efficiently and economically, or ensuring access to

21

services, prior to enacting the Ten percent Rate Reduction; andlor

22

iv. Neither the Legislature nor the Department considered the costs of

23

providing quality care or demonstrated a reasonable connection between

24

Medi..cat rates as affected by the Ten Percent Rate Reduction and provider

25

costs.

26

h. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction violates 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8) because it

27

fails to ensure that Medi-CaI beneficiaries may access care in a prompt

28

manner; andlor

J045819.1
.,
..;:

22
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Writ of Mandate
~ .:

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 33 of 88 Page ID #:33

1

c. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction violates 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13) as to

2

hospital services (including DPINF services) because it was not adopted

3

through a public process as required by this provision.

4

5

JURISDICI10N AND VENUE

6

70. Jurisdiction is proper in this case.

7

71. Jurisdiction in the State ofCalifomia is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

8 1332(d)(5)(A).

9

72. Jurisdiction in the state of California is further proper because Petitioners are

10 informed and believe and on that basis allege that more than two-thirds ofthe proposed petitioner

110 11 class and the primary respondents.are citizens ofthe State of California. 28 U.S.C. § 12 1332(d)(4)(B).

13

13. Venue is properin the County of Los Angeles. (Code ofCiv. Proe. § 401.)

14

15

PETITIONERS' STANDING TO SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW

16

74. Many of the members of Associational Petitioners are Medi~Cal providers. These

17 Medi-Cal providers will suffer a concrete economic injury by the unlawful implementation ofthe

18 Ten Percent Rate Reduction.

19

75. Med.i-Cal providers are in a unique position to advance the interests ofMedi-CaJ

20 beneficiaries. The members of Associational Petitioners which provide 'services to Medi-Cal

21 beneficiaries have an extremely close relationship with their Medi-Cal beneficiary patients who

22 seek that care. A Medi-CaJ beneficiary cannot secure medical services without bis/her health care

23 providers, and without reimbursement by Medi-Cal for those services.

24

76. Medi-CaJ providers are better positioned and informed as to the impact of a

25 reimbursement rate cut on the services they intend to provide. Medi-Cal beneficiaries lack

26 information about the effect ofMedi-Cal reimbursement rates on providers in light of providers'

27 costs and the further effect ofa rate cut on the provision ofservices to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

28 Providers know the relationship ofreimbursement to service and to their costs. As compared to

1045819.7

23
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Deelamtory ReJiefand Writ ofMandate
.( .

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 34 of 88 Page ID #:34

III

i ~ 0~•~00

'l'
Ul

III

:;I cr-o0-

8 ..It:: 1II,8!!
11l1~1(C1,<I)I)~·(·

145~=.

1-.- is:3:z

~
>-

~iii-:

:a:;: 1Z<1'0

o Z 0 tB

IaiJ: "0. J I I~l .

ooQ. ~UI -e0.

:z:- .J

III

I-

1 beneficiaries, providers are in a better position to evaluate the State's decisional process and the

2 data relied upon by the State in determining reimbursement rates. This informational hurdle is

3 sufficient to confer standing on providers, who comprise substantial portions ofPetitioner's

4 membership, to assert the interests oftheir patients who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

5

17. Furthermore, Medi-Cal beneficiaries face economic hindrances to their ability to

6 assert their own rights in this case. To qualify for Medi-Cal, an individual must demonstrate

7 financial need for medical assistance from the State. In light of their finances and the cost of 8 litigatio~ Medi-Cal beneficiaries may not be able to effectively protect their interests.

9

78. Associational Petitioners, as associations representing the interests ofhospitals,

10 physicians, dentists, ADHCs and phannacies that participate in the Medi-Cal program and the

11 Medi-Cal beneficiaries served by these providers, and as parties seeking to compel the

12 Department and Director to comply with their public duties, as defmed by both state and federal
13 law, have a right and an enforceable interest to maintain this action to: (1) enjoin respondents' 14 continuing violation ofstate and federal Medicaid law; and (2) compel respondents to comply

15 with the provisions ofthe applicable state and federal laws.

16

79. Moreover, under California Code ofCivil Procedure Section 1060, Petitioners are

17 entitled to a declaration oftheir rights, their members' rights, andlor their members' patients'

18 rights under state Medi-Callaw and federal Medicaid law.

19

20

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21

80. Associational Petitioners bring this action on behalfoftheir members as a class

22 andlor representative action pursuant to section 382 of the California Code ofCivil Procedure.

23

SI. The class which Associational Petitioners seek to represent is composed of and

24 defined as follows:

25

Provider Class: All health care providers owned andlor operated by

26

any members of the Associational Petitioners (and the governmental

27

28

hospitals. dentists, ADHCs and phannacies that provide services or

1045.819.7

24

Complaint

and

Petition "

for

Injunctive

Relief.

Declarato. ry

Reliefand

Writ

of Mandate

,
.~,

, .
~ ..

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 35 of 88 Page ID #:35

til

, ~0'~00

1/1

l 51~ -t1o'I~0-II

g!:l ::c:: lII o .: « IOnVI«Lll I~II Xtr•.•.

r.!I '.t: iii •
~~~-
3~~;: :a::1Z<t'il
f5- ~ 3 iii
0 III ..J III
11. U
o0 lD111 ~
J:- .:;

bI

I-

1

goods subject to the Ten Percent Rate ReductiQn to Medi-Cal

2

beneficiaries.

3

82. Petitioners further seek certification ofthe following subclasses:

4

a. CMA Sub-Class: All members of CMA that provide services or goods

5

subject to the Ten Percent Rate Reduction to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

6

b. CHA Sub-Class: All members ofCHA and entities affiliated with members

7

~fCHA that provide services or goods subject to the Ten Percent Rate

8

Reduction to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

9

c. CDA Sub-Class: All members ofCDA that provide services or goods

10

subject to the Ten Percent Rate Reduction to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

11

d. CAADS Sub-Class: All members of CAADS that provide s.ervices or goods

12

subject to the Ten Percent Rate Reduction to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

13

e. CAUACEP Sub-Class: All members ofCALIACEP that provide services

14

or goods subject to the Ten Percent Rate Reduction to Medi-Cal

15

beneficiaries.

16

f. CPHA SuJ>;.Class: All pharmacies that provide services or goods subject to

17

the Ten Percent Rate Reduction to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

18

g. CAPH Sub-Class: AU members of CAPH, and the governmental entities

19

with which they are affiliated. that provide services or goods subject to the

20

Ten Percent Rate Reduction to -Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

21

83. Petitioners reserve the right under California Rilles of Court Rule 3.765(b) to

22 amend or modify the Class description with greater specificity or further division into subclasses

23 Of limitation to particular issues.

24

84. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained pursuant to the

25 provisions ofCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined

26 community ofinterest in the litigation and the proposed class is easily ascertainable.

27

a Numerositv: The members of the class are so numerous that joinder ofall

28

members for purposes of pursuing this action is unfeasible and impractical.

1045819.7

25

Complaint and Petition fur lnj1Dlctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate

.:

.;',

.....

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 36 of 88 Page ID #:36

;;

-0~'U0l0

cp
1/1

~

1/1
!bI:r-O-

J:!I::;;l:IlI,Ugle-

o « 01- 01 ••
m ~III u ~x
14 ~ =-.
«, 3Z~,.0,.:...z=1__~

1-111-

15'ZOIll 111 ...1111

8Q. I) '!WX"II

6
<-~'I

:r- .:.;

11/ I-

1

AssociationaI Petitioners estimate that there are as many as 50,000 members

2

in the class.

3

h. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions oflaw and fact exist

4

as to 811 members of the Class and predominate over any questions which

5

affect individual members ofthe class. The questions offact and law

6

common to the proposed class and subclasses include, without limitation,

7

whether the Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not be

8

unlawfully implemented on the bases set forth in paragraphs 64-69 of this

9

Complaint

10

c. Typicality: Associational Petitioners' claims are typical ofthe claims ofthe

11

members of the Provider Class. Petitioners' members have sustained

12

injuries and damages arising out ofrespondents' common course ofconduct

13

in violation oflaw as complained ofherein.

14

d. Adequacy: Associational Petitioners, as representative parties, will fairly

15

and adequately protect the interests ofthe Provider Class by vigorously

16

pursuing this suit through attorneys who aJ:'e skilled and'.experienced in

17

handling matters ofthis type.

18

85. This action is maintainable as a class action because Respondents have acted or

19 refused to act on grounds applicable generally to the class, so that fin81 injunctive relief,

20 extraordinary writ relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respective the class as

21 a whole.

22

86. This action is maintainable as a class action because the common questions of law

23 and fact, summarized in subparagraph 84(b) above predominate over any questions affecting

24 individual members ofthe classes. Moreover. a class action is clearly superior to alternative

2S methods for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthe controversy.

26

87. Notice to class members is not required because of the nature ofthe relief sought

27 by Petitioners in this caSe. 28

1045819.7
1,

0>mplaint and Petition for Injunctive Rel2je6~ Declaratory R.elief and Writ ofMandate
1:-.• ~. :

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 37 of 88 Page ID #:37

1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Writ of Mandate for Violation of State and Federal Law and State Medicaid Plan)

3 By Associational Petitioners, On Behalf ofThemselves, Their Members, the Provider Class, All Sub-Classes and The Medi-Cal Beneficiaries Served by their Members, against All Respondents

4 88. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 87, inclusive, as

5 though fully set forth herein.
6 89. As associations representing the interests ofphysicians, hospitals, dentists, ADHCs

7
or pharmacies, as well as the patients services by those respective groups ofproviders, Petitioners

8
have a clear, present and beneficial interest in ensuring that the Department complies with both

9 state and federal law in administering the Medi-Cal program, including setting the rates of

10 reimbursement paid to providers.

11 90. Petitioners have no speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course onaw since

12 Respondents' violations of law are continuing and ongoing and, if not corrected, will cause

13 Petitioners' members who are continuing to render services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries to suffer

14 substantial monetary loses which can only be recovered through subsequent litigation, thus

15
leading to repeated litigation and a multiplicity ofactions.

16

91. Respondents"have a mandatory duty to comply with the mandates of the State Plan,.

17 federal Medicaid statutes and regulations, the State Constitution, and other applicable State law.

18 The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is unlawful and invalid, has been adopted in violation of

19 mandatory duties imposed upon Respondents by state and federal law. may not be lawfully

20
implemented, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious.

21

92. Unless enjoined, Respondents will neglect to perform their legal duties because:

22

a. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not lawfully be

23

implemented as it violates the State Plan, and accordingly, State and Federal

24 law, because:

25

i. Neither the Department nor the Legislature ensured that Medi-Cal

26

payment rates incorporating The Ten Percent Rate Reduction are sufficient

27

to establish equal access to services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries;

28

1045819.7
..,.;-

27

"

":'rit Complaint and Petition for Injunctive ,Relief, Declaratory Reliefand ofMandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 38 of 88 Page ID #:38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

;; 11

0~'~00

I!'
1/1

12

1/1

IW - ... ,,0 -U)~
8":(1) .. 1;::/1)001'1-

13

1Il:CiII~:X 14

=: .~3Z.,0~10:~::(-1:Z".i<''_•I"I'I

15 16

ffiw Z 0111 III..J 111

ooD.
:z

U III
:&-;

0
~
f! oJ

11.1

17 18

I-

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 28

\045819.7
,
.~:

ii. With respect to non-institutional services, neither the Department nor the Legislature (1) Developed an evidentiary base or rate study resulting in the detennination of a proposed rates incorporating The Ten Percent Rate Reduction; (2) Presented the proposed rates incorporating The Ten Percent Rate Reduction at a public hearing to gather public input; (3) Determined the fInal rate based on the evidentiary base including the pertinent public input; or (4) established the payment rates incorporating The Ten Percent Rate Reduction through adoption of regulations specifying such rates; . and/or iii. With respect to non-institutional services, the rate adjustments made by The Ten Percent Rate Reduction otherwise fail to meet the requirements of42 C.F.R. Part 447. b. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not lawfully be implemented because it is inconsistent with and violates the State Plan. The Department may not lawfully implement The Ten Percent Rate Reduction unless and until it submits the necessary amendments to the State Plan to the federal government and obtains federal approval ofsuch amendments. The Department has not submitted any State Plan Amendments to the federal government needed to implement The Ten Percent Rate Reduction and has not obtained federal approval for The Ten Percent Rate Reduction. c. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction i~ invalid and may not lawfully be implemented because it violates Welfare and Institutions Code section 14079 by mandating a rate reduction without the required annual review and corresponding revision ofreimbursement rates to "ensure reasonable access ofMedi..caI beneficiaries." d. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not lawfully be implemented because it violates the California Constitution by exceeding the Legislature's authority during the special session called by Governor
28
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief and Writ ~fMandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 39 of 88 Page ID #:39

1

2

3

4 5

6 7

8

9
10

r.1J
, 08
~ID III
-i~5r11-:1oII-I

11 12 13

loI::rIlg!!

iO"~:16lI~..

14

~ lI! iii •

II: III
t3 .(a. .I.IlI -

z>": • !i ;; :::I 0:;
.J::I

cZC

!II
•

~

15 16

0~: oIII

..I

III
0

o0xl-i11i1

! .J

Ld

17
18

I-

19

20

21

22

23 24 25 26 27

28

1045819.7

Schwarzenegger. e. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not lawfully be
implemented because it violates 42 C.F.R. § 447.204 by failing to ensure that "payments {are] sufficient to enlist enough providers so that services under the [State Plan] are available to recipients at least to the extent that those services are available to the general population," f. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction is invalid and may not lawfully be implemented because it violates federal Medicaid law because: i. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction violates 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30}(A) because: (1) The rates resulting from The Ten Percent Rate Reduction are not consistent with efficiency, economy~ and quality ofcare, and are not sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services under the Medi-Cal program are available at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population; (2) Neither the Department nor the Legislature considered the factors of efficiency, economy, quality of care, and access to services prior to enacting The Ten Percent Rate Reduction; (3) Neither the Department nor the Legislature demonstrated a reasonable connection between the Ten Percent Rate Reduction and the provision ofquality care efficiently and economically, or ensuring access to services, prior to enacting the Ten percent Rate Reduction; and/or (4) Neither the Legislature nor the Department considered the costs of providing quality care or demonstrated a reasonable connection between Medi-Cal rates as affected by the Ten Percent Rate Reduction and provider
costs. ii. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction violateS 42 U.S.C, § 1396a(a)(8) because it fails to ensure that Medi-Cal beneficiaries may access care in a

Complaint

and~Petition

for

Injunctive

29
Relief,

Declaratory

Relief

and

Writ

of

MillJdate

'.

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 40 of 88 Page ID #:40

1

prompt manner; and/or

2

iii. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction violates 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)

3

as to hospital services (including DPINF services) because it was not

4

adopted through a public process as required by this provision.

S

93. Defacto amending the State Plan without prior approval from the federal

;;;

.. 0~•I00D

I?
III

:~i-~~ ::Jo'O '.-MIoII
o 1.:c/n)0.-.
mo4i;l] )~iXt

Ie'! lui.

~~;;l-

z;>, 0;::

::::J II: Z Q)

..J:I<'

1-11)-

8" ;; n.o Z 0
aW::1uIII.J

1I..I.II.l.

III 0

::r:I-II

~
.J

.I.I.I

6 govenunent in violation of federal law.

7

a. Violating Welfare and Institutions Code section 14079 by implementing a

8

rate reduction without the required annual review and corresponding

9

revision ofreimbursement rates to "ensure reasonable access of Medi-Cal

10

beneficiaries. "

11

b. Violating the California Constitution by implementing AB 5 which was

12

enacted in excess ofthe Legislature's authority during the special session

13

called by Governor Schwarzenegger.

14

c. Violating 42 C.F.R. section 447.204 by failing to ensure that "payments

15

[are] sufficient to enlist enough providers so that services under the [State .

16

Plan) are available to recipients at least to the extent that those services are

17

available to the general population."

18

d. Violating federal Medicaid law by:

19

i. Failing to review, analyze, and appropriately adjust the Merli-Cal

20

reimbursement rates paid to physicians, hospitals, dentists, ADHCs, and

21

phannacies to ensure that those rates are consistent with the factors set out

22

in Section (a)(30)(A);

23

ii. Failing to ensure that Medi-Cal beneficiaries may access care in a

24

prompt manner as required by 42 U.s.c. § 1396a(a)(8); and/or

25

iii. Failing to establish rates pursuant to a public process as required by

26

42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13).

t

27

94. The Ten Percent Rate Reduction will negatively affect Medi-Cal beneficiaries

28 access to services, which is already severely deficient, and will ultimately increase the cost ofthe

1045819.7

30
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declanitol)' Reliefand Writ ofMandate
.,.....

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 41 of 88 Page ID #:41

1 Medi-Cal program by forcing patients to seek care in overcrowded and over burdened hospital

2 emergency departments.

'"
0~'!00 ;II;I
~~r-o1/1 ::t:: 1S1i1ll.;8;;-
o0 .. 01 ••
lD1~1.eU( ~X

K~~$ia!:iI!IIaII:i.:

!5 . , :z3->:I"ZI:;-',1Z\"<I \cI-.-IoI ..Jill

a. 0 0

:00:1:c/01-

-
e!. .:;

I.I..I

3

4

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5

(Declaratory Reliet)

6 By Associational Petitioners, On Behalf ofThemselves, Their Members, the Provider Class, All Sub-Classes and The Medi-Cal Beneficiaries Served by their Members, against All Respondents
7 95. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 87, inclusive, as
8 though fully set forth herein.
9
96. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Petitioners and Respondents
10
regarding the validity of the Ten Percent Rate Reduction that is scheduled to take effect on July 1,
11
2008. Petitioners contend that the rate reduction is invalid and unlaWful in violation ofstate law,
12 the state Constitution, the State Plan, federal law and federal regulations, while the Respondent 13
contends that the rate reduction is valid in all respects. Accordingly, pursuant to Code ofCivil 14
Procedure section 1060, Petitioners request this Court declare that the rate reduction is invalid and
15
unlawful. 16

17
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

18

(preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief)

19 By Associational Petitioners, On BehalfofThemselves, Their Members. the Provider Class, All
20 Sub-Classes and The Medi-Cal Beneficiaries Served by their Members, against All Respondents

21

97. Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 87, inclusive, as

22 though fully set forth herein.

23

98. Unless and until Respondents are enjoined from reducing Medi-Cal rates for health

24 care services, as set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 14105.19 and 14166.245,

25 Petitioners' members and patients those members treat will be irreparably harmed because of the 26 invalid and illegal reduction in Medi-Cal rates in violation of state regulations, the State Plan,

27 federal law and federal regulations. in that:

28

a. Because the reduction in rates will result in a large number ofphysicians

1045819.7

31 complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Reliefand Writ ofMandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 42 of 88 Page ID #:42

iii

08 tp
3:~ In In
g:;-~:cir1:!:I1:JII.1rID-8O--~ i~:\~u ~...

5 = 1z34~~Ii~! <~~CIi -:P•

_ ~ ~ Wi

!r:bI..I1I)

IDL.l.

U
II)

-0

0 .... ;.;

:0x11:1-

w.:.i

~

1

and other providers ofhealth care services to either withdraw from or

2

reduce their participation in the Medi-Cal program due to the inadequacy of

3

the Medi~Ca1 rates to meet the costs of providing services, Medi-Cal

4

beneficiaries in need ofhea1th care services will have increasing difficulty

5

gaining access to needed services. This will result in delays in the receipt of

6

necessary health care services or the inability ofMedi~Cal beneficiaries to

7

receive needed services at all.

8

h. The relationships between patients and providers will be permanently and

9

irreparably disrupted~ becanse many Medi-Cal beneficiaries will be forced

10

to interrupt current courses oftreatment with their providers, as those

11

providers are forced to withdraw from or reduce their participation in the

12

Medi~aI program due to the decrease in Medi-Ca1 rates.

13

c. The reduction in MediMCal rates below the levels necessary to be consistent

14

with efficiency, economy and quality of care will make it increasingly

15

difficult for providers who do remain in the Medi-Cal program to provide

16

services consistent with community standards of quality care since they will

17

incur costs in providing those services greater than the applicable Medi-Cal

18

payments, thus endangering th~ health and well-being ofMedi-Cal

19

beneficiaries and the financial solvency ofthe Medi-Cal providers.

20

99. No administrative appeal process or other administrative remedy is available to

21 Petitioners to challenge the Ten Percent Rate Reduction for health care services.

22

100. All of the said injuries are great, immediate, and irreparable, for which damages at

23 law are inadequate. and for which petitioners have no plain, adequate or speedy relief at law or

24 otherwise.

25

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for judgment as follows:

26

1. For a Writ of Mandate precluding Respondents from implementing the Ten Percent

27 Rate Reduction called for by Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 14105.19 and 14166.245 on the

28 grounds that the reduction violates state regulations, the State Pl~ federal law and federal

1045819.7

Complaint

and

Petition

for

Inj1.D1ctiv~

32
Relief,

Declaratory

Rel

ief and

Writ

of

Mandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 43 of 88 Page ID #:43

1 regulations;

2

2. For an Order declaring that the Medi-Cal rate reduction imposed by Welfare and

3 Institutions Code §§ 14105.19 and 14166.245 violates the provisions of 22 C.C.R. § 50004~ the

4 State Plan, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(8), (a)(l3)s (a)(30XA), and 42 C.F.R. § 447.204 and is therefore

CD

~og~

If!
III

<z~•U;~;)fC.g... I~IoI-I

om0U'~:0/u«1X:-

lC5i13·

~a:;;l::

5 ~ ~ iii

"'- ..J:::l<'
ci5.... 3:l

Wu -

11. III 0

O :o:c -CrD-

;

;;
-
.:i

.U..I

5 illegal and invalid;

6

3. For an Order declaring that the Medi-Cal rate reduction imposed by Welfare and

7 Institutions Code §§ 14105.19 and 14166.245 represents a de facto amendment to the State Plan

8 and therefore said rate reduction cannot be imposed without federal approval;

9

4. For an Order declaring that, when setting Medi-Cal rates in the future, the

10 Department must consider whether the rates have a reasonable relationship to the costs of

11 providing services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries and are sufficient to ensure equal access to services

12 for Medi-Cal beneficiaries and, to the extent rates deviate from such costs or are insufficient to

13 ensure equal access, may not alter nor adjust the rates;

14 1/1

15 III

16 1/1

17 //1

18 /11

19 III

20 1/1

21 III

22 III

23 III

24 III

25 III

26 /II

27 /II

28 III

1045819.7

33
Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief;. Declaratory Reliefand Writ of Mandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 44 of 88 Page ID #:44

1

5. For an Order preliminarily and pennanently enjoining Respondents from

2 effectuating the Medi-Cal rate reduction imposed by Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 14105.19

3 and 14166.245 or reducing to any degree the Medi-Cal rates for health care services that are

4 affected by Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 14105.19 and 14166.245; and

5

6. For the costs ofsuit~ including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Petitioners.

6
7 DATED: May J, 2008
8
9 10
11 12 13 14

HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN. INC. CRAIG J. CANNIZZO LLOYD A. BOOKMAN BYRON J. GROSS JORDAN B. KEVILLE FELICIA Y SZE
By:~cra.iiJ. ~~ZZlJ"
Attorneys for Petitioners

15
16

17

18

19

20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

1045819.7

34
Complaint and Petition for IqjW1ctive Re.liet; Declaratory Reliefand Wn.tof Mandate

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 45 of 88 Page ID #:45
Exhibit A

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 46 of 88 Page ID #:46
Assembly Bill No.5
CHAPTER 3
An act to amend Se('1ion 95004 ofthe Government Code, and to amend Sections 4640.6, 4643, 4648.4,4681.3,4681.5,4691.6,4781.6, and 4783 of. and to add Sections 4681.6, 4689.8, 4691.9, 14041.1, 14105.19, and 14J66.245 10, the Welfure and Institutions Code, relating to health, and declaring the urgency thereof. to take effect immediately.
(Approved by Govemor FebltllllY 16,2008. Filed with Secretary of State february 16,2008.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 5, Committee on Budget. Public health programs. Under existing law, the State Department of Developmental Services provides funding for regional centers for the provision orpurchase ofservices and supports to persons with developmental disabilities. Existing law prescribes a specified ratio for regional center service coordinator to consumer, which is in effect until June 30, 2008. This bill would extend indefinitely the effective date of this ratio. Existing law provides for the assessment ofcertainindividuals for whom benefits are provided by regional centers. Existing law provides that jf assessment is needed, prior to July I, 2008, the assessment shall be perfonned within 120 days following initial intake, and requires that assessments after that date shall be performed within 60 days foJlowing intake. This hi)) would extend indefinitely the 12O-day assessment requirement. Existing law, with certain exceptions, for the 2007-08 fiscal year, prohibits a regional center from paying any provider ofspecified services a rate that is greater than the rate that is in effect on July 1, 2007, unless the increase is required by contract between the regional center and the vendor that is in effect on June 30, 2007. This bill would extend indefinitely this prohibition with respect to the payment ofrates in excess ofthose in effect on June 30, 2008. Existing law provides that, during the 2007-08 fiscal year, no regional center may approve any service level for a residential service provider. This bill would extend indefinitely this provision. It would also prohibit. commencing July I, 2008, a regional center from negotiating rates with residential care providers, except as prescribed Existing law requires the State Department of Developmental Services 10 make payments to providers ofsupported living services for adults with developmental disabilities. Under existing law, the department, by July I, 2002, is required to establish, by regulation, an equitable and cost-effective
9S

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 47 of 88 Page ID #:47

Ch.3

-2-

methodology for the determination of supported living costs and a methodology of payment for these providers.
This bill would, commencing July 1.2008, impose prescribed rate increase restrictions on reimbursement to these service providers and would also prohtbit a regional center from negotiating rates with these providers, except as prescribed.
Existing law prohibits. during the 2007-{18 fiscal year, the State
Department of Developmental Services from establishing any permanent payment rate for a community-based day program or in-horne respite care agency that has a temporary payment rate in effect on July I, 2007, or from making other specified changes or adjustments that would result in a rate increase.
This bill would extend indefinitely this provision, and would apply it to
rates in effect June 30, 2008. It would also prohibit a regional center from negoliating rates with these providers, except as prescribed.
Existing law provides that, for the 2007-08 fiscal year only, a regional
center shall not expend any purchase ofservice f1lllds for the startup ofany new program unless the expenditure is necessary to protect the consumer's health or safety or because of other extraordinary circwnstances and the
department has granted prior written authorization.
This bill would extend indefinitely this prohibition. Under existing law, the Califomia Early Start Intervention Services Act, various state entities provide coordinated services to infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families. Existing law requires early intervention
services to be provided directly to eligible infants and toddlers and their families through the regional center system and the local education system. Existing law requires that, in providing services under the act, regional centers comply with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, aod its implementing regulations, including, but not limited to, those
provisions relating to vendorization and ratesetting, exc(lpt where compliance with those provisions would result in any delays in, or any cost to families for, the provision ofearly intervention, or otherwise conflict with the act or its implementing regulations. Existing law, untilJuly 1,2009, also contains
family cost participation requirements for specified services obtained by
regional centeIs for persons with developmental disabilities. This bill would extend indefinitely the fiunily cost participation
requirements, and would also require that, subject to federal approval, in providing those early intervention services under the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Services Act, regional centers apply the family
oost participation requirements that require families of children receiving early intervention services to contribute a specified amount to the cost of those services based on family size and scaled income levels. It would also revise the family cost participation schedule and the procedures governing how a parent may appeal a decision made by the executive director of a regional center, with respect to the amount ofthe parents' cost participation.

1: .

~...
, .

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 48 of 88 Page ID #:48

-3-

Ch.3

Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program. administered by the State Department ofHealth Care Services, under which qualified low~income persons are provided with a variety of health services.
Eltisting law contains various provisions governing reimbursement rates
for Medi-Cal providers.
This bill would. notwithstanding any other provision of law, and to the . extent not otherwise conflicting with federal law, authorize the department to withhold, or direct the medical fiscal intermediary to withhold, payments for providers, as described, for a period ofone month for a month ending prior to January I, 2009.
Existing law creates various health programs, including the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program, the California Children's Services Program, the Genetically Handicapped Person's Program, and specified family planning programs.
This bill would, with certain exceptions, for services rendered under these programs on and after July I, 2008, require the Director of Health Care Services to reduce provider reimbursement rates by 10010,
The bill would specifY that the reductions imposed pursuant to the bill would apply only to the General Fund share of the payment, and only to payments for services from funds appropriated to the department
Existing law establishes the Medi~CaI HospitalJUninsured Care Demonstration Project Act, which revises hospital reimbursement methodologies under the Medi-Cal program in order to maximize the use of federal funds consistent with federal Medicaid law and stabilize the
distribution of funding for hospitals that provide care to Medi-CsJ beneficiaries and uninsured patients. This demonstration project provides for fimding, in supplementation of Medi-Cal reimbursement, to various hospitals, including designated public hospitals, nondesignated public hospitals, and private hospitals. as defined in accordance with certain
provisions relating to disproportionate share hospitals. This bill would reduce by 10% payments for inpatient hospital services
to acute care hospitals not under selective contracts with the department that are provided on and after July I, 2008.
The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Govemorissued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on January 10,2008.
This bi1l would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by
the Governor by proclamation issued on January 10, 2008, pursuant to the
California Constitution. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency
statute.

95

...t .
. ~ .~

.~~

;;

.:-',

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 49 of 88 Page ID #:49

Cit. 3

-4-

Thepeople o/the Slate o/California do enact as/ollows:

SECTION]. Section 95004 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 171 of the Statutes of2oo1, is amended to read:
95004. The early intervention services specified in this title shall be provided as follows:
(a) Direct services for eligible infants and toddlers and their families
shall be provided pursuant to the existing regional center system under the Lantennan Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing willi Section 4500) ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code) and the existing local education agency system under appropriate sections of Part 30 (commencing with Section 56000) of the Education Code and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1431 et seq.).
(b) (1) In providing services under this title, regional centers shaD comply with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act {Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code, and its implementing regulations (Division 2 (commencing with Section S0201) ofTide 17 ofthe California Code ofRegulations) including, but not limited to, those provisions relating to vendorization and ratesetting, and the Family
Cost Participation Program, except where compliance with those provisions would result in any delays in, the provision ofearly intervention, or otherwise conflict with this title and the regulations implementing this title (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 52000) of Division 2 of Title 17 of the
California Code ofR.egulations), or Part C ofthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1431) et seq., and applicable federal regulations contained in Part 303 (commencing with Section 303.1) ofTitle 34 of the Code ofFederal RegUlations.
(2) When compliance with this subdivision would result in any delays
in the provision of early intelVention seJVices for the provision of any of these services, the department may authorize a regional center to use a special service code that allows immediate procurement ofthe service.
(c) Services shall be provided by family resource centers that provide, but are not limited to, parenHo-parent support, information dissemination and referral, public awareness, family professional collaboration activities, and transition assistance for families.
(d) Existing obligations of the state to provide these services at state expense shall not be expanded.
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature that services be provided in accordance with Sections 303.124,303.126, and 303.527 oflitle 34 of the
Code ofFederal Regulations. SEC. 2. Section 4640.6 oftbe Welfare and Institutions Code is amended
to read: 4640.6. (a) In approving regional center contracts. the department shall
ensure that regional center staffing patterns demonstrate that direct seJVice
coordination are the highest priority.

95

'~

\:
.;.:

">';':" .:"

?~..,
-:~.

~;. ; I.

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 50 of 88 Page ID #:50

-5-

Ch.3

(b) Contracts between the department and regional centers shall require

that regional centers implement an emergency response system that ensures

that a regional center staffperson will respond to a consumer, or individual

acting on behalfofa consumer, within two bours ofthe time an emergency

call is placed. This emergency response system shall be operational 24 hours

per day, 365 days per year,

.

(c) Contracts between the department and regional centers shall require

regional centers to have service coordinator-to-consumer ratios, as follows:

(I) An average service coorrunatOf-to-consumer ratio of 1 to 62 for all

consumers who have not moved from the developmental centers to the

community since April 14, 1993. In no case shall a service coordinator for
these consumers have an assigned caseload in excess of 79 consumers for

more than 60 days.

(2) An average service coordinator-to-consurner ratio of I to 45 for all

consumers who have moved from a developmental center to the community

since April 14, 1993. In no case shall a service coordinator for these

consumers have an assigned caseload in excess of 59 consumers for more

than 60 days.

(3) Commencing January 1,2004, the foHowing coordinator-to-consumer

ratios shall apply:

(A) All consumers three years of age and younger and for consumers

enrolled on the Home and Community-based Services Waiver for persons

with developmental disabilities, an average service coordinator-to-consumer

ratio of 1 to 62.

(B) All consumers who have moved from a developmental center to the

community since April 14, 1993, and have lived con.tinuously in !he

community for at least J2 months, an average service

coordinator~to-consumer ratio of 1 to 62.

(C) All consumers who have not moved from the developmental centers

to the community since April 14, 1993, and who are not described in

subparagraph (A), an average service coordinator-to-consumer ratio of 1 to

66.

(4) For purposes ofparagraph (3), service coordinators may have a mixed

caseload ofconsumers three years ofage and younger, consumers enrolled

on the Home and Community-based Services Waiver program for persons

with developmental disabilities. and other consumers if the overall average

caseload is weighted proportionately to ensure that overall regional center

average service coordinator-to-consumer ratios as specified in paragraph

(3) are met. For purposes of paragraph (3), in no case shall a service

coordinator have an assigned caseload in excess of 84 for more than 60

days.

(d) For purposes of this section, "service coordinator" means a regional

center employee whose primary responsibility includes preparing,

implementing, and monitoring conswners' individual program plans,

securing and coordinating consumer services and supports, and providing

placement and monitoring activities.

95

\.

~.
.;":,

,

i,
;;-."

'\ r

4.-

.~

~\ ~'"""

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 51 of 88 Page ID #:51

Ch.3

-6-

(e) In order to ensure that caseload ratios are maintained pursuant to this section, each regional center shall provide service coordinator caseload data
to the department, annually for each fiscal year. The data shall be submitted in the format, including the content, prescnbed by the department Within 30 days of receipt of data submitted pursuant to this subdivision, the department shall make a sununary of the data available to the public upon request. The department shall verify the accuracy of the data when
conducting regional center fiscal audits. Data submitted by regional centers
pursuant to this subdivision shaJl: (I) Only include data on service coordinator positions as defined in
subdivision (d). Regional centers shaH identify the number ofpositions that perform service coordinator duties on less than a full~time basis. Staffing ratios reported pursuant to this subdivision shan reflect the appropriate proportionality ofthese staff to conswners served.
(2) Be reported separately for service coordinators whose caseload includes any ofthe following:
(A) Consumers who are three years ofage and older and who have not
moved from the developmental center to the community since April 14,
1993.
(B) Consumers who have moved from a developmental center to the
community since April 14. 1993.
(C) Consumers who are younger than three years ofage. (0) Consumers enrolled in the Home and Community-based Services
Waiver program. (3) Not include positions tbat are vacant for more than 60 days or new
positions established within 60 days of the reporting month that are still vacant
(4) For pwposes of calculating cascload ratios for corulUmers enrolled in the Home- and Community-based Services Waiver program, vacancies
shall not be included in the calculations. (f) The department shall provide technical assistance and require a plan
of correction for any regional center that, for two consecutive reporting periods, fails to maintain service coordinator caseload ratios required by this section or otherwise demonstrates an inability to maintain appropriate staffing patterns pursuant to this section. Plans of correction shall be developed following input from the local area board, local organizations representing consumers, family members, regional center employees,
including recognized Jabor organizations, and service providers. and other
interested parties. (g) Contracts between the department and regional center shall require
the regional center to have, or contract for, all of the following areas: (I) Criminal justice expertise to assist the regional center in providing
services and support to consumers involved in the criminal justice system as a victim, defendant, inmate, or parolee.
(2) Special education expertise to assist the regional center in providing advocacy and support to families seeking appropriate educational services from a school district.

95

"

'f',

,.k
j~-

~,
0'; ;

t· ~!'

:

~\ :;i'\
~ J.

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 52 of 88 Page ID #:52

-7-

Cb.3

(3) Family support expertise to assist the regional center in maximizing

the effectiveness of support and services provided to families.

(4) Housing expertise to assist the regional center in accessing affordable

bousing for consumers in independent or supportive living arrangements.

(5). Community integration expertise to assist consumers and families in

accessing integrated services and supports and improved opportunities to

participate in community life.

(6) Quality assurance expertise, to assist the regional center to provide

the necessary coordination and cooperation with the area board in conducting

quality-oMife assessments and coordinating the regional center quality

assurance efforts.

(7) Each regional center shall erriploy at least one consumer advocate

who is a person with developmental disabilities.

(8) Other staffing arrangements related to the delivery of services that

the department determines are necessary to ensure maximum

cost-effectiveness and to ensure that the service needs of consumers and

families are met

(b) Arry regional centerpropos~g a staffing arrangement that substantially

deviates from the requirements of this section shall request a waiver from

the department. Prior to granting a waiver, the department shall require a

detailed staffing proposal, including, but not limited to, how the proposed

staffing arrangement will benefit consumers and families served, and shan

demonstrate clear and convincing support for the proposed staffing

arrangement from consti1Uencies served and impacted, that include, but are

not limited to, consumers, families, providers, advocates, and recognized

labor organizations. In addition., the regional center shaU submit to the

department any written opposition to the proposal from organizations or

individuals, including, but not limited to, consumers, families, providers,

and advocates, including recognized labor organizations. The department

may grant waivers to regional centers that sufficiently demonstrate that the

proposed staffing arrangement is in the best interest of consumers and

families served, complies with the requirements of this chapter, and does

not violate any contractual requirements. A waiver shall be approved by

the department tor up to 12 months, at which time a regional center may

submit a new request pursuant to this subdivision.

(i) The requirements ofsubdivisions (c), (f), and (h) shall not apply when

a regional center is required to develop an expenditure plan pUJSuant to

Section 4791, and when the expenditure plan addresses the specific impact

of the budget reduction on staffing requirements and the expenditure plan

is approved by the deparlment.

(j) (1) Any contract between the department and aregional centerentered

into on and after January 1. 2003, shall require that all employment contracts

entered into with regional center staff or contractors be available to the

public for review, upon request. For purposes of this subdivision, an

employment contract or portion thereof may not be deemed confidential

nor unavailable for public review.

.

liS

~
~:.

y<.

!:

i.,
~l.
!~

~.'

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 53 of 88 Page ID #:53

Ch.3

-8-

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the sociai security number of the

contracting party may not be disclosed.

(3) The term of the employment contract between the regional center

and an employee or contractor shall not exceed the term of the state's

contract with the regional center.

SEC. 3. Section 4643 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended

to read:

4643. (a) If assessment is needed, the assessment shall be performed

within 120 days following initial intake. Assessment shall be performed as

soon as possible and in no event more thm160 days fonowing initial inmke

where any delay would expose the client to unnecessary risk to his or her

health and safety or to significant further delay in mental or physical

development, or the client would be at imminent risk ofplacement in a more

restrictive environment. Assessment may include collection and review of

available historical diagnostic data, provision or procurement of necessary

tests and evaluations, and summarization ofdevelopmental levels and service

needs and is conditional upon receipt ofthe release ofinfonnation specified

in subdivision (b).

(b) In determining ifan individual meets the definition ofdevelopmental

disability contained in subdivision (a) of Section 4512, the regional center

may consider evaluations and tests, including, but not limited to, intelligence

tests, adaptive functioning tests, neurological and neuropsychological tests,

diagnostic tests perfonned by a physician, psychiatric tests, and other tests

or evaluations that have been perfonned by, and are available from, other

sources.

SEC. 4. Section 4648.4 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code is amended

to read:

4648.4. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation,

commencing July 1,2006, rates for services listed in paragraphs (1), (2),

with the exception of travel reimbursement, (3) to (8), inclusive, (10), and

(11) of subdivision (b), shall be increased by 3 percent, subject to funds

specifically appropriated for this increase in the Budget Act of2006. The

increase shall be applied as a percentage, and the percentage shall be the

same for all providers. Any subsequent change shall be governed by

subdivision (b).

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw or regulation, except for

subdivision (a), no regional center may pay any provider of the fonowing

services or supports a rate that is greater than the rate that is in effect on or

after June 30, 2008, unless the increase is required by a contract between

the regi':lnal center and the vendor that is in effect on June 30, 2008, or the

regional center demonstrates that the approval is necessary to protect the

consumer's health or safety and the department has granted prior written

authorization:

'

(1) Supported living services.

(2) Transportation, including travel reimbursement.

(3) Socialization training programs.

(4) Behavior intervention training.

95

~:.

~~,

\:

"'1""•.1

>:

~L.

:f~

f_"

";. .l

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 54 of 88 Page ID #:54
eh.3
(5) Community integration training programs. (6) Community activities support senlices. (7) Mobile day programs. (8) Creative art programs. (9) Supplemental day services program supports. (lO) Adaptive skills trainers. (11) Independent living specialists. SEC. 5. Section4681.3 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read: 4681.3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, for the 1996-97 fiscal year, the rate schedule authorized by the department in operation June 30, 1996, shall be increased based upon the amount appropriated in the Budget Act of 1996 for that purpose. The increase shall be applied as a percentage, and the percentage sha1I be the same for all providers. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, for the 1997-98 fiscal year, the rate scbedule authorized by the department in operation on June 30, 1997, shall be increased based upon the amount appropriated in the Budget Act of 1997 for that purpose. The increase shall be applied as a percentage, and the percentage shall be the same for a11 providers. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, for the 1998-99 fiscal year, the rate schedule authorized by the department in operation on June 30, 1998, shall be increased commencing July I, 1998, based upon the amount appropriated in the BudgetAct of 1998 for that purpose. The increase shall be applied as a percentage. and the percentage shall be the same for all providers. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision ofthis article, for the 1998-99 fiscal year. the rate schedule authorized by t..'le department in operation on December 31. 1998, shall be increased January 1, 1999, based upon the cost-of-Jiving adjustments in the SuppJemental Security Income/State Supplementary Program for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled appropriated in the BudgetAct of 1998 for that purpose. The increase shall be applied as a percentage and the percentage shall be the same for all providers. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision ofthis article, for the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the rate schedule authorized by the department in operation on
June 30, 1999, shall be increased July t, 1999, based upon the amount
appropriated in the BudgetAct of 1999 for that purpose. The increase shall be applied as a percentage and the percentage shall be the same for all providers.
(t) In addition. commencing January 1.2000, any funds available:from cost-of-living adjustments in the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) for the 1999-2000 fiscal year shall be used to further increase the community care fucility rate. The increase shalJ be applied as a percentage, and the percentage shall be the same for all providers.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of Jawor regulation. for the 2006-07 fiscal year, the rate schedule ill effect on June 30, 2006, shall be
95

\
~.;~

..
J:.

.r.

~;.

"..
":II.~
':;'"

?\.
" ;

-

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 55 of 88 Page ID #:55

Ch.3

-10-

increased on July I, 2006, by 3 percent, subject to funds specifically appropriated for this increase in the Budget Act of2oo6. The increase shall be applied as a percentage and the percentage shall be tbe same for all providers. Any subsequent increase shall be governed by Sections 4681.5 and 4681.6.
SEC. 6. Section 4681.5 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:
4681.5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, no regional center may approve any service level for a residential service provider, as defined in Section 56005 ofTitle 17 ofthe California Code of
Regulations, ifthe approval would result in an increase in the rate to be paid to the provider that is greater than the rate that is in effect on June 30, 2008,
unless the regional center demonstrates to the department that the approval is necessary to protect the consumer's health or safety and the department
has granted prior written authorization.
SEC. 7. Section 4681.6 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
(0 read:
4681.6. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, commencing July I, 2008:
(a) No regional center may pay an existing residential service provider,
for services where rates are detennined through a negotiation between the regional center and the provider, a rate higher than the rate in effect on JUD.e 30, 2008, unless the increase is required by a contract between the regional center and the vendor that is in effect on June 30, 2008, or the regional
center demonstrates that the approval is necessary to protect the consumer's health or safety and the department has granted prior written authorization.
(b) No regional center may negotiate a rate with a new residential service provider, for services where rates are detennined through a negotiation betvveen the regional center and the provider, that is higher than the regional
center's median rate for the same service code and unit of service, or the statewide median rate for the same service code and unit of service,
whichever is lower. The unit of service designation must confonn with an
existing regional center designation or, if none exists, a designation used to
calculate the statewide median rate for the same service. The regional center shall annually certify to the department its median rate for each negotiated
rate service code, by designated unit of service. This certification will be
subject to verification through the department's biennial fiscal audit of the
regional center.
(c) For purposes of this section, "residential service provider" includes
Adult Residential Facilities for Persons with Special Health Care Needs, as
described in Section 4684.50. (d) This section shall not apply to those services for which rates are
determined by the State Department of Health Care Services. or the State Department ofDevelopmental Services, or are usual and customary.
SEC. 8. Section 4689.8 is added to the Welfare and JDStitutions Code, to read:

95

~

~;

":'
"

:~.

}..
'.

.,

1:.

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 56 of 88 Page ID #:56

-11-

Ch.3

4689.8. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation,
commencing July 1,2008:
(a) No regional center may pay an existing supported living service
provider, fur services where rates are detennined through a negotiation between the regional center and the provider, a rate higher than the rate in effect on June 30, 2008, unless the increase is required by a contract between the regional center and the vendor that is in effect on June 30, 2008, or the regional center demonstrates that the approval is necessary to protect the consumer's health or safety and the department has granted prior written
authorization.
(b) No regional center may negotiate a rate with a new supported living
service provider, for services where rates are detennioed through a
negotiation between the regional center and the provider. that is higher than the regional center's median rate for the same service code and unit of
service, or the statewide median rate for the same service code and unit of
service, whichever is lower. The unit of service designation shall conform
with an existing regional center designatioll or, ifnone exists, a designation used to calculate the statewide median rate for the same service. The regional center shall annually certify to the State Department of Developmental
Services its median rate for each negotiated rate service code, by designated unit ofservice. This certification shall be subject to verification througb the
department's biennial fiscal audit of the regional center.
SEC. 9. Section 4691.6 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:
4691.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation,
commencing July 1, 2006, the community-based day program, work act:iv.ity program, and in-home respite service agency rate schedules authorized by
the department and in operation June 30, 2006, shall be increased by 3 percent, subject to funds specifically appropriated for this increase in the
Budget Act of2006. The increase shall be applied as a percentage, and the percentage shall be the same for all providers. Any subsequent increase shall be governed by subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e) and Section 4691.9.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of Jawor regulation, the
department may not establish any permanent payment rate for a community-based day program or in-home respite service agency provider that has a temporary payment rate in effect on June 30, 200S, if the
pennanent payment rate would be greater than the temporary payment rate in effect on or after June 30, 2008, unless the regional center demonstrates
to the department that the permanent payment rate is necessary to protect the consumers' health or safety.
(c) Notwiilistanding any other provision of law or regulation, neither the department nor any regional center may approve any program design modification or revendorization for a community-based day program or in-home respite service agency provider that would result in an increase in the rate to be paid to the vendor from the rate that is in effect on or after June 30, 2008, unless the regional center demonstrates that the program

95

~"
i~'

;i.
.~, ;;.~

~"

;

..,.~'.

:;'i:

~,

..;..~
..-

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 57 of 88 Page ID #:57

Ch.3

-12-

design modification or revendorization is necessary to protect the consumers'
health or safety and the department has granted prior written authorization.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, the department may not approve an anticipated rate adjustment for a
community-based day program or in-home respite service agency provider that would result in an increase in the rate to be paid to the vendor from the
rate that is in effect on or after June 30, 2008, unless the regional center demonstrates that the anticipated rate adjustment is necessary to protect the consumers' health or safety.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, the
department may not approve any rate adjusb"nent for a work activity program
that would result in an increase in the rate to be paid to the vendor from the
rate that is in effect on or after June 30, 2008, unless the regional center demonstrates that the rate adjustment is necessary to protect the consumers'
health and safety and the department has granted prior written authorization. SEC.I0. Section 4691.9 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
to read: 4691.9. Notwithstanding allY other provision of law or regulation.
commencing July 1. 2008: (a) No regional center shan pay an existing service provider, for services
where rates are determined through a negotiation between the regional center and the provider, a rate higher than the rate in effect on June 30, 2008. unless the increase is required by a contract between the regional center and the vendor that is in effect on June 30, 2008, or the regional center demonstrates that the approval is necessary to protect the consumer's health or safety and the department has granted prior written authorization.
(b) No regional center may negotiate a rate with a new service provider,
for services where rates are determined through a negotiation between the regional center and the provider, that is higher tJ-.an the regional center's
median rate for the same service code and unit of service, or the statewide
median rate for the same service code and unit of service, whichever is lower. The unit ofservice designation must confonn with an existing regional
center designation or, if none exists, a designation used to calculate the
statewide meilian rate for the same service. The regional center shall annually certify to the State Department of Developmental Services its median rate for each negotiated rate service code, by designated unit of service. This
certification will be subject to verification through the department's biennial fiscal audit of the regional center.
(c) This section shall not apply to those services for which rates are
determined by the State Department of Health Care Services, or the State
Department of Developmental Services, or are usual and customary. SEC. 11. Section4781.6 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code is amended
to read: 4781.6. (a) A regional center shall not expend any purchase ofservice
funds for the startup ofany new program unless the expenditure is necessary to protect the consumer's health or safety or because of extraordinary

9S

k
·.f:. . .

].'.
;.

~ ,f:'

~.
~.,
';;'':'

t, ?'
.if..

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 58 of 88 Page ID #:58

-l3-

Ch.3

circumstances, and the department bas granted prior written authorization
for the expenditures.
(b) This section does not apply to the purchase ofservices funds allocated as part of the department's community placement plan process.
SEC. 12. Section 4783 of the Welfilre and Institutions Code is amended to read:
4783. (a) (l) The Family Cost Participation Program is hereby created in the State Department of Developmental Services for the purpose of assessing a cost participation to parents, as defined in Section 50215 ofTitle 17 of!be California Code of Regulations, who have a child to whom all of
the following applies:
(A) The child has a developmental disability. (B) The child is zero years of age through 17 years of age.
(C) The child lives in the parents' home. (0) The child receives services and supports purchased through the regional center. (E) The child is not eligIble for Medi-Cal.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a parent descn"bed in subdivision (a) shall participate in the Family Cost Participation Program established pursuant to this section.
(3) Application ofthis section to children zero through two years ofage shall be contingent upon approval by the United States Department of Education.
(b) (1) The department shall develop and establish a Family Cost
Participation Schedule that sball be used by regional centers to assess the parents' cost participation. The schedule shall consist ofa sliding scale for families with an annual gross income not less than 400 percent ofthe federal poverty guideline, and be adjusted for the level ofannual gross income and the number ofpersons living in the family home.
(2) The schedule established pursuant to this section shall be exempt from the rulemaking provisions ofClmpter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) ofPart 1 ofDivision 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code.
(c) Family cost participation assessments shall only be applied to respite, day care, and camping services that are included in the child's individual program plan or individual famiJy service plan for children zero through two years of age.
(d) Ifthere is. more than one minor child living in the parents' home and receiving services or supports paid for by tbe regional center, or living in a
24-hour out·of·home facility, including a developmental center, the assessed
amount shall be adjusted as follows: (1) A parent that meets the criteria specified in subdivision (b) with two
children shall be assessed at 75 percent ofthe respite, day care. and camping
services in each child's individual program plan for each child living at
home. (2) A parent that meets the criteria specified in subdivision (b) with three
children shall be assessed at 50 percent ofthe respite, day care, and camping

95

t."~ .,
;.

t:;..
;

'L. , ".,
r~.;.

.~

11

"

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 59 of 88 Page ID #:59

Ch.3

14-

services included in each child's individual program pIan for each child living at home.
(3) A parent that meets the criteria specified in subdivision (b) with four children shall be assessed 25 percent of the respite, day care, and camping seIVices included in each child's individual program plan for each child living at home.
(4) A parent that meets the criteria specified in subdivision (b) with more than four children shall be exempt from participation in the Family' Cost
Participation Program.
(e) For each child, the amount ofcost participation shall be less than the amount of the parental fee that the parent would pay if the child lived in a
24-hour, out-of-home facility.
(f) Commencing Januaxy 1, 2005, each regional center shall be responsible
for administering the Family Cost Participation Program. (g) Family cost participation assessments or reassessments shall be
conducted as follows:
(1) (A) A regional center shall assess the cost participation for all parents of current consumers who meet the criteria specified in this section. A regional center shall use the most recent individual program plan or individual family service plan fur this purpose.
(B) A regional center shall assess the cost participation for parents of newly identified consumers at the time of the initial individual program plan or the individual family service plan.
(C) Reassessments for cost participation shall be conducted as part of the individual program pIan or individual family service pJanreview pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 4646 or subdivision (f) of Section 95020 of the Goverriment Code.
(D) The parents are responsible for notifYing the regional center when a change in family income occurs that would result in a change in the assessed amount ofcost participation.
(2) Parents shall self-certify their gross amrual income to the regional center by providing copies ofW-2 Wage Earners Statements, payroll stubs, a copy of the prior year's state income tax return, or other documents and proofofother income.
(3) A regional center shall notify parents of the parents' assessed cost participation within 10 working days of receipt of the parents' complete income documentation.
(4) Parents who have not provided copies of income documentation pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be assessed the maximum cost participation
based on the highest income level adjusted for family size until such time as the appropriate income documentation is provided. Parents who
subsequently provide income documentation that results in a reduction in their cost participation shall be reimbursed for the actual cost difference incurred for services identified in the individual program plan for respite, day care, and camping services, for 90 calendar days preceding the reassessment The actual cost difference is the difference between the maximum cost participation originally assessed and the reassessed amount

9S

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 60 of 88 Page ID #:60

-15-

Ch.3

using the parents' complete income documentation, that is substantiated
with receipts showing that the services have been purchased by the parents. (5) The executive director of the regional center may grant a cest
participation adjustment for parents who incur an unavoidable and uninsured catastrophic loss with direct economic impact on the family or who
substantiate, with receipts, significant unreimbursed medical costs associated
with care for a child who is a regional center consumer. A redetermination of the cost participation adjustment shall be made at least annually.
(h) A provider of respite, day care, or camping services sha1I not charge a rate for the parents' share ofcost that is higher than the rate paid by the regional center for its share ofcost.
(i) The department shall develop. and regional centers shall use, all fonns and documents necessary to administer the program established pursuant
to this section. The forms and docwnents shall be posted on the department's
Web site. A regional center shall provide appropriate materials to parents
at the initial individual program plan meeting and subsequent individual program plan review meetings. These materials shall include a description
of the Family Cost Participation Program. (j) The department shall include an audit ofthe Family Cost Participation
Program during its audit ofa regional center.
(k) (I) Parents ofchildren ages three through 17 years ofage may appeal an error in the amount of the parents' cost participation to the ex.ecutive director of the regional center within 30 days ofnotification ofthe amount
of the assessed cost participation. The parents may appeal to the Director of Developmental Services, or his or her designee, any decisio,:! by the executive director made pursuant to this subdivision within 15 days of
receipt ofthe written decision of the executive director. (2) Parents of children ages three through 17 years of age who dispute
the decision oflhe executive director pursuant to paragrapb (5) ofsubdivision
(g) shall have a right to a fair hearing as described in, and the regional center shall provide notice pursuant to, Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4700).
This paragraph shall become inoperative on July 1,2006. (3) On and after July 1,2006, a parent described in paragraph (2) shall
have the right to appeal the decision ofthe executive director to the Director of Developmental Services, or his or her designee, within 15 days ofreceipt
of the written decision ofthe executive director.
(I) For parents of children ages zero through two years of age, the complaint, mediation, and due process procedures set forth in Sections 52170 to 52174, inclusive, ofTitle 17 oftbe California Code ofRegulations
shall be used to resolve disputes regarding this section. (m) The department may adopt emergency regulations to implement this
section. The adoption, amendment, repeal, or readoption of a regulation authorized by this section is deemed to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, or general welfare, for purposes of Sections 11346.1 and 11349.6 of the Government Code, and the department is hereby exempted from the requirement that it describe specific fit.cts showing the need for immediate action. A certificate of

95

1:- : {'~

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 61 of 88 Page ID #:61

Ch.3

-16-

compliance for these implementing regulations shall be file1l within 24
months following the adoption of the "first emergency regulations filed pursuant to this subdivision.
(n) By April], 2005, and annually thereafter, the department shall report to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature on the status of the implementation of the Family Cost Participation Program established under this section. On and after April 1, 2006, tbe report shall
contain all of the following: (1) The annual total pW'chase of services savings attributable to the
program per regional center.
(2) The annual costs to the department and each regional center to administer the program.
(3) The number of families assessed a cost participation per regional center.
(4) The number of cost participation adjustments granted pursuant to
paragraph (5) ofsubdivision (g) per regional center. (5) The number of appeals filed pursuant to subdivision (k) and tbe
number of those appeals granted, modified, or denied.
SEC. 13. Section 14041.1 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
to. read:
14041.1. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and to the
extent not otherwise conflicting with federal law, the department may hold for a period ofone month, or direct the medical fiscal intennediary for the Medi~Cal program to bold for a period ofone month, payments to providers
or their designated agents for health care services that are provided pursuant
to this chapter, and payments to entities that contract with the department pursuant to this chapter, Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 14200) and
Chapter 8.75 (commencing with Section 14590) for the delivery ofhcalth care services.
(b) The authority descn'bed in subdivision (a) shall be limited to payments for one month only, and only for a month ending prior to January ], 2009.
SEC. 14. Section 1.4105.19 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
14105.19. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order to implement changes in the level of funding for health care services. the director shall reduce provider payments as specified in this section.
(b) (1) Except as provided ill subdivision (c), payments shall be reduced by 10 percent for Medi~Ca1 fee-far-service benefits for dates of service on
and after July 1,2008.
(2) Except as provided in subdivision (c), payments shall be reduced by
10 percent for Don-Medi-Cal programs described in Article 6 (commencing
with Section 124025) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 14105.18, for dates of service on and after July 1,2008.
(3) For managed health care plans that contract with the department
pursuant to this chapter, Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 14200), and
Chapter 8.75 (comroencingwith Section 14590), payments shall be reduced

95

~ :{'

",.
l, "

}
~
.;~

"f,"
~~.:
.1';..

"t~:
., ,

."w

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 62 of 88 Page ID #:62

-17-

Ch.3

by the actuarial equivalent amount of the payment reduction specified in this subdivision pursuant to contract amendments or change orders effective on July 1, 2008.
(c) The services listed in this subdivision shall be exempt from the payment reductions specified in subdivision (b):
(I) Acute hospital inpatient services, except for payments to hospitaLc; not under contract with the Slate Department of Health Care Services, as provided in Section 14166.245.
(2) Federally qualified health center services, including those facilities deemed to have federally qualified health center status pursuant to a waiver under subdivision (a) ofSection 1315 ofTitle42 aftbe United States Code.
(3) Rural health clinic services. (4) All of the following facilities: (A) A skilled nursing facility pursuant to subdivision (c) ofSection 1250
of the Health and Safety Code, except a skilled nursing facility that is a distinct part ofa general acute care hospital For pwposes ofthis paragraph, "distinct part" has the same meaning as defined in Section 72041 of Title
22 of the California Code of Regulations.
(B) An intermediate care mcility for the developmentally disabled pursuant to subdivision (e), (g), or (h) of Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code. or a facility providing continuous skilled nursing care to developmentally disabled individuals pursuant to the pilot project established by Section 14495.10.
(C) A subacute care unit, as defined in Section 51215.5 of Title 22 of
the California Code of Regulations. (5) Payments to facilities owned or operated by the State Depanment of
Mental Health or the State Department of Developmental Services.
(6) Hospice. (7) Contract services as designated by the director pursuant to subdivision (e). (8) Payments to providers to the extent that the payments are funded by means of a certified public expenditure or an intergovernmental transfer pursuant to Section 433.51 of TitIe 42 of the Code ofFederal Regulations.
(9) Services pursuant to local assistance contracts and interagency agreements to the extent the funding is not included in the funds appropriated to the department in the annual Budget Act.
(10) Payments to Medi-Cal managed care plans pursuant to Section 4474.5 forserv:ices to consumers transitioning from Agnews Developmental
Center into Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties pursuant to the
Plan for the Closure ofAgnews Developmental Center. (] ]) Breast and cervical cancer treatment provided pursuant to Section
14007.71. (12) The Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment (Family PAC1)
Waiver Program pursuant to Section 14105.18. (d) Subject to the exception for services listed in subdivision {c}, the
payment reductions required by subdivision (b) shall apply to the services rendered by any provider who may be authorized to bill for the service.

95

~;...
> l

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 63 of 88 Page ID #:63

Ch.3

-18-

including, but not limited to, physicians, podiatrists, nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, and organized outpatient clinics.
(e) Notwithstanding Chapter 3..5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1ofDivision 3 ofTitle 2 ofthe Government Code, the department may implement this section by means ofa provider bulletin, or similar instruction, without taking regulatory action.
(f) The reductions dt>ilcribed in this section shan apply only to payments for services when the General Fund sbare ofthe payment is paid with funds directly appropriated to the department in the annual Budget Act and shall
not apply to payments for services paid with funds appropriated to other
departments or agencies.
(g) The department shall promptly seek any necessary federal approvals for the implementation of this section.
SEC. 15. Section 14166.245 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
14166.245. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the state faces a fiscal crisis that requires unprecedented measures to be taken to reduce General Fund expenditures to avoid reducing vital government services necessary for the protection ofthe health, safety, and welfare ofthe citizens of the State ofCalifomia.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for acute care hospitals not under contract with the State Department of Health Care Services
pursuant to Article 2.6 (commencing with Section 14081) ofChapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9, the amounts paid as interim payments for inpatient
hospital services provided on and after July I, 2008, shall be reduced by 10 percent.
(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for acute care hospitals not under contract with the State Department of Health Care Services, the reimbursement amount for inpatient services provided to
Medi-Cal recipients for dates ofservice on and after July 1, 2008. shall not exceed the amount detennined pursuant to paragrapb (3).
(2) For pwposes of this subdivision, the reimbursement for inpatient services includes the amounts paid for all categories of inpatient services allowable by Medi-Cal. The reimbursement includes the amounts paid for routine services, together with all related ancillary services.
(3) When calculating a bospital's cost report settlement for a hospital's fiscal period that includes any dates of service on and after July I, 2008, the settlement for dates ofservice on and after July 1, 2008, shall be limited
to 90 percent of the hospital's audited allowable cost per day for those services multiplied by the number of Medi-Cal covered inpatient days in the hospital's fiscal year on or after July I, 2008.
(d) Hospitals that participate in the Selective Provider Contracting Program pursuant to Article 2.6 (commencing with Section 14081) and designated public hospitals WIder Section 14166.1, except Los Angeles County Martin Luther King, Jr.lCharles R.. Drew Medical Center and Tuolwnne General Hospital, shall be exempt from the 10 percent reduction
required by this section.

95

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 64 of 88 Page ID #:64

-19-

Ch.3

(e) Notwithstanding the rulemaking proVlslons of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 oftbe Government Code, the director may implement subdivision (b) by means ofa provider bulletin. orothersimilar instruction, without taking regulatory action.
(t) The director shall promptly seek aU necessary federal approvals in order to implement this section, including necessary amendments to the state plan.
SEC. 16. This act addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation on January 10, 2008, pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 10 ofArticle IV of the California Constiwtion.
SEC. 17. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article N of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect The facts
constituting the necessity are: In order to make statutory changes needed to implement cost containment
measures affecting health services, at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

o
95

~.

'.,'I,

~[,

~"

I·.

, :

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 65 of 88 Page ID #:65

1

VERIFICATION

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3

I have read the foregoing Petition and Complaint for (1) Writ of Mandate; (2) Declaratory

ReHer; (3) Injunctive Relief and know its contents.

4

I am one ofthe attorneys for Petitioners CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION;

5 CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION; CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATrON;

CALIFOR}.,1A ASSOCIATION FOR ADULT DAY SERVICES; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
6 EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, STATE CHAPTER OF CALIFORNlA, mc.; CALIFORNlA

PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION, and CALIFORNIA ASSaCIATION OF PUBLIC

7 HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS, parties to tills action. Such parties are absent from the

county where I have my office. and I make this verification for and on behalfof those parties for

8 that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the

foregoing document are true.

9

1, Executed on May 2008, at San Francisco, California.

10

I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the

11 foregoing is true and correct.

12

13 Craig J C:mpiz;zQ
14 Print Name ofSignator

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2015567.1

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 66 of 88 Page ID #:66
EXHIBIT - C

05/05/2009 13:58 13105596298

ALL STAR ATTV SVC

PAGE 18/29

.'''r' .C~qannsneiRM2N:~0~m8Rp-.c~v~~-R0~3~w3mI6Dm3H-DCt~AITAS:A-rMroArnNrn~~~D~~o;:c~u,&mi~~e~n~~t~~1~,~.~F~~il~e~~d~:0~-5--/-2-1--/-0--8--~-P--a'rg-e--_6_7_o__f _8_8___P_a_g_e__ID___#~:6C7~~

r ·····.····Cral•g J . Cannizz~ (SBN 703.79)

.

FOR COURT IJSEC»I/..V

Lloyd A.. Bookman (SBN 89251

Hooper, Lundy & Bool9nan, Inc.

·1675 Century Park East, Ste 1600, Los Angeles, CA 90067 .

• ~IONeNO.: (310) 551-8111

FI'\XNO.; (310) 551-8181

CONFORMED COpy

t:SA::lT:UOP=REINOEO=.=V-~F=COO~RU=R(T1:'VO-e:"':"f,:);"'CALP~IFl:a;;Oi'n:':t:iRfc:f.s:N'::'IA,-C""'O:-UNTY-.-O-F;-Lo-s--:A-n-g-.I:-e-s---....:~--------l.

OF OtUOJNAL FlLID LaI Anpletlijplrlor l:CMt

MsAInI:.aI:IrIAIDGD~RSE6S;S:

Central District 111 North Hill Street

MA'f' n ./

.'

.
{j

I"jIl0. 08

CITYANDZIPcooe' Los Angeles, CA 90012

.

9RANCI-I NA~E:

Jotl itA. Gl_e~ft~

CASE NAME: CALIFORNIA MEDlCA~ ASSOCIATION, at at. v."SHEWRY, et al. B'lt~~ ~

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

I&l Unlimited

0 Umited

(Amount

"(Amount

Complex Cue Designation
o Counter O· Joinder

den'landed'

demanded is

Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGe:

exceeds $25,000) . $25 000 or less)

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)

DEPT:

Items '1-lf below mlJ&t be completed (see instructions on page 2).

1. Checl( one OOX be/ow for the case type ttlat best describes this case:

BC390'~6

Auto Tart
o Auto (22) o Uninsurej:l motorISt (46)

0Contract Breach of conlra,ct/wamill'l'tY (06)

P~rIo.vIRSuiolensalolyfCCoomurpt.lerxulCesiv3il.4U0t0lg-.3a.t4io6!n1)

0 Rule 3.740 OOIlection.s (09) .

0 .

AntibulilfTrade regulation (03}

Other PIIPDIWD (personallnjuryiProperty

0 Other ooIlec1iOI1$ (09) ,

0 Construction defllct (10)

oDamage!Wrofigful Death) Tort Asbestos (04)

o OD

Product liability (24)
Medical malpractice (45) Oth9r PIIPDIWD (23) .

0 Insurance COverage (18)

0Rs~1

Other contract Property

(37)

0 Eminent domain/lnvetStiI

condemnation (14)

0 '0 0 0

Mass tort (4~)
Securltlealitigalion (28)
EnvironmentaVToxic tort (30)
Insurance ooverege daims arising from \he ;lOOW Ilclad provisionally complex case

0 Non-PUPDJWD (other) Tort

Wl1)ngful Gvlctlen (33)

o 0 BusinS$s tort/unfair business practice (07)

Other real property (215)

o eMI righls (08) .

Unlawful Detalnar

o 0 Oa/'amElv6n (13)

Commerciel (31)

o 0 Fraud (16)

Residential (32)

o 0 Intelledual property (19)
.Professional negligence (25)

Drugs (38) Judicial ~eyiew

B ;0 ASset Other non-PIIPDJWD tort (35)

forfeiture (05)

typ4;Is'(41)
Enforcement of Judgment .
0 Enforoemenl ofjudgment (20)
t.1iscelr.,neous Chnl Complaint
0 RICO (27) 0 . Other complaint·fnot specified above) (42)
M;soellaneous Clvfl Petition
0 ~artnershlp and corpcJf1rta governance (21)

oEmployment Wrongful termination (36)

0 . [ ] PetitiOll 1'$: arbllratiori award (11)

Other petfuon (not spedied above) (43)

[81 Writ of mandata (02)

~

[ ] OfherQmployment (15)

0 Other judicial revi~ (39)

l8J 2. ThiS case

0 1$

IS not co.mpl~l( under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the

factors requiring exceptional judIcial management:

0 181 a.

large number of separatel)' repres~nted partiei d.

0 b. ~ extensive motipJl practice rsising 'difficult or novel e.

issues that will be time-cOnsuming to resolve c. ~ Substantial amount of doc;umentary evidence

f. IZI

Large number of witnesses.

.

Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
in other oounUes, states; or countries, or In a federal court
Substan~1 pos~Lldgmentj!Jdicial supervision

b.l8l 3. Remedies sought (check en that apply): t1.0 monetary

nonmonetary: deClaratOry or injunctive reDer . c. 0 punitive

4. Number of causes of action (specify): .

.

0 5. This case ~ is

is not II class action suit

'I 6. If there are any known related cases, file.and serve a notice of related case. (You mey use

Date:M..,1 z.ooS"

.'

.

C8XI& ;r'; C.ANNlZ.·Z.O re:ORPRINT

-..----,h~~~~~~~::7::::::::;:-----

NOTICE

• Plaintiff must file 1tIis cover sheet wim the first paper filed in !he action or proceeding (except small Claims cases or cases filed

under 1I'\e Probate Code, 'Family Code: or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.2.20,) FailurE! to file may rQSUIt

. in sanctions.

.

• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet mquired by local court rule. • ·If this case is compl~ under rv163.400 at seq. of the California Rules of Court. you muSt serve a copy of this cover sheet on all

· other parties to U1e action or proceedil'lg. .

'..

• Unless this is a collections -case under ruls 3.740 or a comllle.x case., thls cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.

.'

.

fa 10U

05C/0a5s/e2020:808-1c3v:-50833631-3C1A05S5-9M62A9N8 Document 1

ALL STAR ATTY SVC

PAGE 19/28

Filed 05/21/08 Page 68 of 88 Page ID #:68

CM-010

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THe COVER SHEET

'

,To PlaintJf&i and Others Filing First PaPers. If you, are filing a first paper (for example, '8 complaint) in Q' cMI case, you must
on complete and file. along with you~ first paper. the Civil Cese Cover Sheet con~lned on jJa.ge 1. This .information win be used to compile
statistiCS about the t)/pes aod numbers o! C8SQ$ fil~. You m~t oomplete items 1 through 6 the sheet. In item 1, yqu must check' one box for the case type that best descnbes the case. If !he case fits both a general and a more specific type of ~se listed in item 1,
check '!he more specific one_ If the case has multiple causes' of action, checl( tile box that best indicates the prtmary cause Of action,
To assi$t you in complel~ng the $he9t, examples of the casQS that belong under each case type in item ,1 are provided below. A cover

sheet,must be flied only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paparfiletJ in a civil case 'may subject a party;

its co",ns91, or botl:l to sanctions under ru)e$ .<2.30 ana 3.2.20 of the Califomia Rules of Court.

'

To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A ~co"ections case" under: rule 3.740 is defined as an actio/) for recovery of money

owed In a sum stated to be certain 1ttat is not mora than $25,000, exclusive of ii-¢srest and 31.tomey's fees, ariSing from a tran$action in

which property, services, or money was acquired on credit;. A collections case does not include an action seeking (he following: (1) tort
damages. (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery O,f real property, (4) recOVQry of personal proPe.r1¥, or (5) a prejudgment wrtt of

attachment The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case'on this folTll means ftlat it will be exempt from the general

time-for-s9fViC6 requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant flies a responsive pleading. A rulo 3.740 collections

case will be subject to tt)e requirements for service and obtaining. a judgment in rule 3.740.

"

To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only) parties must alSo U$e the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the

case is complex. If a pla:intjff be!leves"tI1e case is complex under rule,3_400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by

completing the appropriate boxes,in items 1 a"d 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as"!'JOmplex. the cover sheet rh~ be seMld with the

complaint on all parties'to the action. A defendant may file and serve !'Io later than the lime of .its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's deSignation, a counter-<fe~ignation that the case is not complex, or, ifthQ plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that

the case is complex,

Auto Tort

,

Auto (Z2)-PersonaIIQJu,ry/Property

DamageIWrongful Death

Uninsured Motorist (46) (ifthQ

CS$Il! involVIN 41" uninsul'6d

motoriSt claim 6ubject,10

stbitmtiotJ, cfHiK;I( this Itsm
instead 01 Auto)

Other PJIf'DJWD (pon:onal Injuryl

Property Damage/Wrongful Death)

Tort

Asbestos (04)

Asbestos Property Oamege Asbesttl$ PersGriai InJuryJ

Wrongful Dealll

,

Product liability (IiQt as/JQSlo$ of

toxicltmvfronmental) (24)

Mediad Malpractice C45) Medical Malpractice- , Physicians & Surgeons.
Other Professional Health Care.

MalpraCtiCe

Olher PIlPDIWD (23) Premises liability (e.g.. slip and fall) Intentional Bodily InjurylPOIWO

(e.g., assault, vandalism)

Inlsntional Itttliction of

Emollonq lOIs1ress

!'IEigligent 1000iCllon of

EmoUooal DIStress

Other PIIPDIWD

Non·PUPDlVVO (other) Tort

Business TortJUn1'air Business Practice (07)
Civil Rights (e.g.• discrimlnation_

false 8nsst) (not: civl1

"6f1JS.$1f1ef1~ (08)

,

Oefamali01l (e.g., sla.ndet. libel)

(13)
Fraud (16)

Intellectual Properw (19) Professional Negligence (25)

Legal MalpraCCioo O1tler ProfQS9ionlJl Malpractice
(11()( medical or IegaQ

O1her Non.,pIIPO/WD Tort (35)

Employment'

,

wrongful Terminall~ (36,) Other

, Employment (15)

CASE TYPES-AND EXAMPLES

ContnJct

Bread! of ContractMlarranly (06)

Breach of Rentalll..ea.se

Cohtract (not unlawful detainer

or wrongfUl evlcfiorJ) ,

ContractJWarranty 8reacn-8eller Plainlifl' (not fraud ornegligeflCll)

Neglig9nt Breach of Contract!

Warranty

Other f3reaOh of ConlraatlWarranty

tollections (9-9" money owed. ~n

book accounts) (09)

Collection Case-SElIle( Plaintiff

other Promissory Nota/Collections

Case
Insurance COwtage (hot proVfS;onal/y

camp/El1() (18)

Auto Subrogation

Other Coverage

Other Contract (37)

Contractual Fraud

Olller Contract Dispute

RealP~rty

,

Eminent Domain/lnvers:e

CondemnalIon (14) ,

Wrongful Evicti~ (33) OIhar R.eal ProP9f'IY (e.g., qul!;lt title) (26)

Writ of PO$$$5SiOfl of Real Property

Mortgage Foradosui"e

QuietTdle Olher Real PropertY (nat eminent

r:Iomain. /snd/0trJ/t:9narrt. or

foreclosure)

Unlawful Dat:ilnot

Comme.rcial (31)

Reaidentlal (a2) Drugs (38) (if fl1e case involves illegal
.drogs,.chec;l( this kem; otherwise,
mpott as Commercial or RS8id6nfial)

JUdiCIal RevillW '

Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Mlntien Award"(11)

Wnl of Mandate C02)

Writ-Administmtive M&r1damus
case W~Qndsmus on UmibKI Court Matter Wrl~r Umll»d Court Case

Review

Other Judicial Re-.iew (39)

Review of Health Officer Order

Notice of AppeaH..abor

. Co/nmI8$ioner Appeals

Provi51onally cornple,1i: CMI Utigat;ol) (Cal.

Rules of Court Rulaa 3.400-3.403)

, AntltrustITrade .Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10)

Claims Involving Mass Tart (40)

Securities Li1Igal;ion (28)

Environmal1tavra.xic Tart (30)

Insurance Coverage CJain't.s

(arising from provisiOll&lIy complex

'case f:yp{II fisted above) (4.1)

EnforeemBllt of Judgmant

Enfbrcement of Judgm9l'lt (20)

AbsImct of Judgment{Out of

"COul'l~)

,

Confession of Judgment (nOfl-

domestia relations)

8i$ter State Judgment

Administrative Agency Award

(not unpaid taxes)

Petition/CertificatiOll of Entry of

, Judgment on Unpaid Taxes

O~er EnfilrcelTlent of Judgment

case'

,

Miscalleneous Civil Complaint

~ICO (27)

,

Other complaint (not spGJdfied aoovs) (42)

DeGlaratorY. Relief Only
Injunctive Relief Only (fIOIl-.

h9l1Mi8lllliJ/1t)

Mechanics Uen Other Commercial Complaint

Case (non-tot1lnon-complex)

Other Civil Complaint

(nrm-tDrtlno(KlomplfJx)

Miscelllilneous Civil Petition

Partnership and COrPorate

Governance (21)

other Petition (not spec1fiGd

- above) (43)

C'NiI Harassment

Workplace Vlole.(\ce

ElderJOependent Adult

Abuse

Eleolion Ccole:st'

Peb1ion fo/ Name Change

Pa1IlIon for Relief From Lata

C~im

Other Civil Petition

cM-a10 11Wr. Jlly 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

IA~.'_'''''''''' I

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 69 of 88 Page ID #:69
EXHIBIT - D

/ '.Ca0/s5/e052/:20080-8cv-1033:35683-CA1S3H-MI5A59N629D8 ocument 1

ALL STAR ATTY SVC Filed 05/21/08 Page 70 of 88

Page IDPA#G:E70 13/28

$HORfTITtI;;
al. CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, et at v. SHEWRY, et

CASe NUMSER

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION
'This form IS required pursuant to lAsc ~Ocal Rule 2.0 In PII new civil case filing_in.the los Angeles S~P9rior Court.

Item I. Check the types of hearing and filt in the estimated length of hearing e)C.pected for this case:

0 'r8I. 0 0 0 JURYTRIAI.?

YES ClASS ACTION?

YES LIMITED CASE?

YES TIME ESTIMAiED FOR TRIAL _ _ HOURSI DAYS.

Item II. Select the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps ~ If you checked "Limited Case", Skip to Item III, Pg. 4):

the Step 1: After first completing the C!vil Case Cover Sheet Form, find main ciVil case cover sheet hel!lding for your case in

the left ma.rgin below, arid. to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you sel~cted...

Step 2.= Check one Superior Court type of action in Column B below whiCh best describes the nature of this case.

Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for: the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked.
For any exception to the court location, see Los Angeles Superior Co~rt Local Rule 2.0.

Iq1pli~bl9 Reasons for Ch~osing C~urt~ouse Location (see Column C b~low)

1. Class Actions must be 'filed in the County Courtflouse. !:entrat District. ~. May be Iill!ld In Central (OtIler county, or no Bodily Injury/Propert)/ Damage),

a. Location of properw. 01' permc:mently g,,~ed vehicle.
7. Location where petitioner resides.

3. t..ocation where cause of action amse.

'

8. Location wherein defelldantlrespondent functions wholly.

4. L.ac:allion wflarc bodily injury. depth or dam>tgQ OCCUrred.

9. Location where.ooe or more of the parties reside.·

5. Location Where performance required ordefendantreeides.

10. Location of laDer CommISsIoner Offics.

Step 4: Fil! in the information rE!Quested on pege 4 in Item III: complete Item N. Sign the declaration.

,

A
Civil Case Cover Sh.11MIt Category No.

Type of Action

B
(Chad( only one)

C
Applicable .Reasons •
See Step 3 Above

Auto (22)
Uninsured Motorist (46)
Asbestos (04)

OA7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal tnjuryJProaerty DliImagQ/WrongM Death

1.,;2..,4.

o A7110 Personallnjurytproperty ()amaQeJWrongful Deeth - Uninsured MotO/'i$t 1., 2., ...

o A6070 . Asbestos Proper\Y Dam;;lge

2.

01\7221 Asbestos· Per.50nallnjuryJWrongflJi Death

2.

Product lJability (24)

OA7260 ProduQ Uability (not ~sbestos or toXIcierMl1Jnm~ntal)

, .• '2.,3. ,4., 8.

'Medical Malpractice (45)
Other
Persooallnjury Property Damage Wrongful Death
(23) .
Business Tort (07) Civil Ri,Qh 15 (06)
, Defamation (13)
Fraud (16)

OA7210
OA1240
o A72!50

Medical Malpractioe - Phy,sicial15 &.Su~s OtI)er Profassional Haalth CaJe Malp~
Premises Uabllity (~.g., slip and tall)

DAn30 Intentional ~ily InJuryJProperty OamageIWrongful Death (e.g., assault, vandalism, etc.)

.OA]270. lnterilionallnftiction of Emotional Dls~

OA7'220 Other PelSenallnjurylPrope(ty DamagQ/Wrongful OQ~

.0 A6029 . Other CommerciaVBusiness Tort (not trBudlbreacl'l of mnlnlct)

OA6(105 Civil Rigf1t910iscrimination
o ~6010 Oet.matlon (slandoarllibel)

OA6013 Fraud (no contract)

1.,2.,4. 1.• 2.,4.
1.,2.. 4. 1.,2.,4. 1.•2., 3. 1.,2..4.
'.,2.,3. '.,2.,3. 1.. 2.,3. 1.. 2.,3.

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
• - - - ..... A ....

LASC, rule 2.0
PIiOI'IA 1 nf4

05/05/2008 13:58 13HI5596298

ALL STAR Anv svc

PAGE 14/28

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 71 of 88 Page ID #:71

SHORTTfn.E:
CAliFORNIA MEDICAl ASSOCIATION, et ~L v. SIiEWRY, et al.

A
Civil' Case Cover Sheet Catellory N~.
,.
, PrOfessional Negligenoo (25)

B
Type of Action
(Cl1eelc only ono)
DA6017 Legal ~Ipractic:e 'OA6050 O1t'ier Professional Malpractice (not medical or leg:al)

Othar{351

[)AflO25 Other Non-P~al InJury/Prope"¥ Damage tort

C
Appticable Reuons -See step 3 AboV8
i .. 2., 3.
1.,2.,3.
2.• 3.

Wrongful Termination
(36)
other Employment (15)

Breach of Contract!

Warran~

(06)

-e u
-o o c

(not insurance)
CoIIec::ti0ri3 (09)

Insuranoo CoVGl'llgB (1B)
Other Con1ract (37)

Emlnool Domain/Inverse
Coodelmnation (14)
Wrongful Eviction (33)
Ditter Real Property (2~)

Unlawful DetalnerCornmercial (31)
Unlawful DetainerM Residential (3.2)
Unlawful DetainerPrug::; (36)
Asset Forfeiture (00) P9lition I"Q Arbi,uaCion
(~1 )

. DA6037 Wrongful Termination

'1,,2.,3.

DA6024 Other 'Employment Complaint Case
o As109 Labor CommisSioner Appeals

DA6004 Brea~ at: Ran1allLease Contract (not UnlawliJ' ~iner or wrongful evicllon)

o MOaS QlnlractlWlillr.lnty Breach ·Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)

. '

DASo19 Negligent Breach of ContradJWarranty (no fraud)

DASo28 Other Breach of ContraotlWarranff (not fraud or negllgenoo)

1.,2.,3. 10.
2., S. 2.,5. 1.• 2.,5, 1.. 2..,5,'

OA6002 CoIleC!i0ns CIlIse-Selll;)r Plaintiff
DA601z Other Prom~ Note/Collections case

2 ... 5 . , 6 2.,5.

OA6015 Insurance Coverage. (not complex)
DA6009 'Contractul'll Fraud
O.AB031 TOI1I'ous Interference
OA6027 Other Contract Olspule(not breacMnsurancelfraudlnegligence)

1.,2"5.. 8. _.....-
1 .. 2.. 3•. S. 1.,2,,3.. 5. 1.,2.• 3.,8.

OA1300 Eminent OomainlCondemniiltlon

. Numbarofparcels _ _

2-

DA6023 WrotlQful Eviction Case

-_ ... _.

DA6011'1 DA60,:il2 DA6060

MorIQage Foredosu/'B

:

Quiet TItle

Othe~ Real p~perty(not eminent domain. lIan~lord/tQnant. mreoiooure)

DA6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commeitial (not drugs or wrongful eviction)

OA6020

Unlawful

Detainer-Residential
,.

(not

drugs
'

or~1

evlC. llOn)

DA6022 Unlawful Delainer-Drugs

OA6108 Asset Forfeiture case

OA6115 PelIlion to CompellConfinnNacate Nbi1nlliolJ

2,6.
2.. 6, 2..6. 2.6. 2•• 6. ,2.,6. 2 •• B.'
2.,6.. 2•. 5.

CIV·109 (Rev. 01JOn

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND'STATFMENT OF lOCATION

l~nL~.!!~~":;....

LASC, rule 2.0 1 P8Qe2of4

05/05/2008 13:58 13105596298

ALL STAR Any svc

PAGE 15/28

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 72 of 88 Page ID #:72

SHOR'I' "Im.E:'
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, et at v. SHEWRY. et al. ..

A
Civil Case Cover Shoat Category No.

B
Type of Action
(Check only one)

writ of Mandate (02)

DA6161 Writ - Administrative Mandamus

DA6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Cqse Matter

Other DA6153 .Wrft -

Umited Court case ReVIew

Other Judicial Review (39)

~A6150 OthQl' Writ (Judicial ReVIew

C
ApplfC8ble Reuons s_ Step 3 Above
2., ~.
2..
2.
C3)8 ..

><
II)

ii

E Uo

c: o

>.=P

IIIItD
1::;:
=-U0i .-...
. ~

t·

AntitnJ9tiT~de Regulation (03)
COnstructlon Defect (1~)
Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
SflCUrilies Li1ig~tlon (28)
TOJCic Tort Environm&l'Ital (30) . Insurance CoveragEl ClaIms from Complex
CaSQ (41)

.OAB003· AntitrustlTliilde Regulation
OABOO7 Construction defect 01\6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort
D.AS035 Securities Litigation Case . OA6036 Toxic TOItJEIlvironmental
-"'
. OA6014 InSurance COveragefSubrogalion (complex case only) '.

-I:":"'."::
e. II» liP
E
eO'Oar
'to2:::~:J.
uJO

Enforcement of Judgment
. (20)
RICO (27)

Othe.r Complaints (Not Specllled Above)
(42)

OA6141
OA6160
DA6~o7 OA6140
o A6114.
DA6112

Sister State Judgment
Abstract of Judgment Confession ?f Judgment (n~-dOl'f'lfistic relations)
Admi~lstradVQ Agency Award. (not unpaid taxQS)
Petltton/certificate ~ EflVy ofJudgment on Unpaid Tax
Other Enfon:ement at Judgment Case

OA6033 . Rack~ta9ring (RICO). Case ..

t8:l A6030 Declaratory Relief Only
I2S!A604{J Injunctive Relief Only (not domestlclharassment)
O'A6011 Or.het Commerda.1 Complaint Case (~on-tortlnon-oo"!plex)
01'6000 O1tter eMl Complaint (non-tortInon-complex)

1..,2.,8.
1.• 2..3.
1.,2., B.
1.,2..8.
1.• 2.,3•• 8.
1.• 2., !i., 8.
2.,9. 2 .• 6. 2...9.
2.,I!I.
2., a.
2.. 8. ,9.
1.,2..8:
1.. 2.,8. '2.,8. 1.,2.. 8. 1.,2. B.

Pal1llershlp Corpor.ltion Govamanoe(21)

·DA6113 Partne~rp and Corporate Governance case

DA6121 Civil HarE\3Srnent

DA6123 Workplace Harassmant

O1tIerPeti1iol'ls (Not Speclllf!ld Above)
(43)

OA6124 E1dsr/Oependent Adult Abuse~
DA6190 Election Contest
o A6110 Petition for Change of Name
OA617O Pelition for Relieftrom Late ClaIm Law

OA6100 Other Civil Petidon
-'

2..8.
2.,3.,9. 2..3.• 9. 2..3. ,9. 2.
2..7.
2..1 3. ,4., 8. 2 . . 9. .

CIV 109lRev. 61/07)

CIVil CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

LAse. rule La

I AF\ln ~TATEMENT OF'LOCATION ·'Amtflo:an .....lH<:;t,lM. Page30f4

05/05/2008 13:58 13105596298

ALL STAR Any svc

PAGE 16/28

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 73 of 88 Page ID #:73

SHORT TITle:

:

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, et al. v. SHEWRY, et 81.

Item III. Statement of Location.: Enter the address of the accident. party's residence or place of business, pertonnance, or
other circum$nce indicated in Item II., Step 3 On P~e 1. as the proper.reason for filing in the.court location )'OU selected.
_.

. ~EASON: CHECt(THE NUMBER UNDE~ 9QLUMN C WHICH APPUES IN THIS CASE

AOO~. S? Sl';(/~ 9~

o 1. ~ 2. 0 3. 04'. 0 5. 06.07.08.09.0 10.

rov:~~

STATE:
(J,IJ

z~t1ij.

O! Item' IV. Declaration ofAssignment: I declare under penalty of pe~ury under the 'laws ltIe State of Gallfomla that th~ foregoing is f!l9 true and co~ and that abOve-entitled !\latter is properly filed lOr assignment:to the Central Civil West oour1house in thG

Central

District of the L.o.s Angeles Superior COurt (Co(1e CIY, Proc.; § 392 et seq., and LASe Local Rule 2.0,

sub~. (b), (c) and (d».

PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO

PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COU,RT CASE:

'

1. original Complaint Dr Petition.
a 2. If filing Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuanCe by the Clerk.

3. Civil Case Cover sti~t fO!TIl CM-Q10.
4. Complete Addendum to CMI Case Cover Sheet form ,LACIV 109 (Rev. 01.'07), ~SC Approved 03-04.

S. Payment in full of the filing fee. unless fees have been waived.

6. Signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, JC {ann FL~935. if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor

under 18 years of age, o~ if required by Court.

.

'

7. Additional caples of documents to be Conformed by the Clerk. Coples of the cover sheet and this addendum
must be served ~Iong with the sumJflons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.

o

•

"

•

; ..
eN 109 (Rev. 01/07)

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM .

LAse, rule Z.O

I ANn ~TATEMENT OF LOCATION IAImotitaRUOII1Net.loo. Page4of4

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 74 of 88 Page ID #:74
EXHIBIT - E

05/05/2008 13:58 13111:'15596298 Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1

ALL STAR ATTy SVC Filed 05/21/08 Page 75 of 88

Page IPDAG#E:7510/28

or SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY LOS ANGELES

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

. Ca$e Number
--------~--------------~---

BC390126

. T~IS.fQRM IS TO BE SERVED Wll'H THE SUMMONS AND COMfLAl.NT

in ~our case is ~SSiglltd for all purposes to the judicial'officer

lIiCll~d

bllow. Then
_# .k..;,.

Is

addidonalinforlllatioll

~KI

tile

~£vt:r$'e

s,ide

ofthis·form.

.

. ASSIGNED JUDGE

. DEPT ROOM

ASS'l6NED JUDGE

DBPT

ROOM

!:fon. Gregory AlarCon

36

410.

Hon. Mary H. Strobvl

32

406

Hon. Conrad Aragon

49

509

llon. £mest. M. HirosI'Jige

54

512

Hon. Helen 1. Bendix.
Hon•...Elihu M. Berte
Hon. Tricia 'Ann Bigelow
HOIl. Kevin C. Brw.:ile
HOI}. SOUSS8ll 9. 6mgilcrs
HOIl. Susan Brya.nt-Dc~ol')
.....Hon. L"is A. Lavin
IV. ~on. Victoria Chaney'" ,!,.;;':
Hon, Judith C: Chlrlin
Hon. Ralph W. Dpu'

18
42
23.. 20
7)' 5;2.
·13
324. 19
57

308 416
315 3)0 729 510 630 CCW 311 .
517·

Hon. Jane L.Johnson
Hall. Mn J. Jones Hon•. Ruth AM'J(wan
Hon. Charles C.' Lee Han. M31c(jlm 1i. Mackey Hon. Rita Miller
..
Hon. David L. Minnijlg
HOII, Aurelio Munoz
Han. Mary Ann Murphy ..
.Hon. Joanne O'Donnell

56
.. 40
72 33 SS
16 61 47 25 37'

514414-
_-- 73J .. .. 409
51S 306 632 507 . 317 413

Hon. Maurc:e;n Duffy-Lewis

38

4J2

Hon. YVE'!ttI:: M. Palazuelo.s:

28

318

Hon. James R. Dunn

26

. 316'

Hon. Mel R.ed Recana

45

:;:29

Ho'n. Marie Mooney·

68

617

Hoo. AIIU1 S. Rosefield

3J

407

Horo. William f. fahey
Hol'I. Irving S: Feffer

78·

. 7~O

.51

511

HOD. Teresa Sanchc:z-Gordo~
, Hon. John P.Shuuk.

74

735

53

513

Han. Edward A. Ferns

69

621

Hon. Ronald M. Sohig~an

41

4)7

Hon. Ke,,~th R. Frcemarr

·64

601

Hon. Michael C. Solner

39

415

Hon. \tichard Fruin
Hon. Terry A. Green Hon. Eli23beth A. Grimes Ho". Paul Gutmllll'
- Han. Robert L.. Hess
..

15

307

.f4

.300

:

30 . . .400

3;4

408

.;24

314

Hon. Michael L. Stern Hoo. RolfM: Treu HOD. ElizabErll Allcn'W}lite
;
Hon. John Shepard Wiley Jr. Hon. MIlr.Y T/'Iomton·House Otbet

62

600

58

. ~16

48

506

50

508

17

. '309

"Class A.ctlons

.

Given

'to

the

PIa.intiff/C. ros.s-ComplainanT!Attorn. ey.

f
Q

RecQ rd

. JOHN A. CLARKE.' Executive Offitcr/Clerk

. By

I Deputy Clerk

LACN cet-! 190 (Rev. 01fOB)

LAse AJ:)proved 00-0:6

. :

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT -

. UNLIMITED CIVIL C~SE

.

rage 1 of;2

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 76 of 88 Page ID #:76
EXHIBIT - F

• Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1
AnORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):

• ?5 Filed 05/21/08 Page 77 of 88 Page ID #:77 --7("7\

FOR COURT USE ONLY

CM-015

_.Jordan B. Keville (SBN 217868)

HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, INC. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067

FILED

TELEPHONE NO.' (310) 551-8103

FAX NO (Optio,al) (310) 551-8181

E-MAIL AOORESS (Optlo,,')' jkeville@health-law.com

ATTORNEY FOR (Nama) California Medical Association, (see attached)

Los Angeles Superior Court
{ MAY 157008

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES S1'REET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street

JOHN~t~CLERK

GIll' AND ZIP CODE: Los Angeles, CA 90012-3014

BY J. eLUNA, DEPUTY

BRANCH NAME:

CASE NUMBER'
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. BS114459

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandra Shewry, Director of Department of Health Care Services of the State of California, et al.
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hon. James C. Chalfant
DEPT.:
85

Identify, in chronological order according to date of filing, all cases related to the case referenced above. 1. a. Title: California Medical Association, et al. v. Sandra Shewry, et al.

b. Case number: BC390126

0 c. Court:

same as above

12!:! other state or federal court (name and address): Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Civil West, 600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005
d. Department: 324

0 0 0 0 e. Case type:

limited civill2!:! unlimited civil

probate

family law

other (specify):

f. Filing date:

0 g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" ~ Yes

No

h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply):
o involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.

~ arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.
o involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.
o is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.
o Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h

i. Status of case:

~ pending

o 0 0 §dismissed

with

o ,/ disposed of by judgment

2. a. Title;l F b. Cas~~umber: c. cou~~ 0 same as above

without prejudice

H 0 other state or federal court (name and address):

d. Department:

Form Approved for Optional Use Jud\cia\ Council 01 California CM-015 [Rev, July 1, 2oo7J

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Page 1 of 3
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300 www.courtinfo.ca.gov
American legalNet, Inc. W'N'II.FormsWorkflow.com

• Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1

• Filed 05/21/08 Page 78 of 88 Page ID #:78

Attachment to Notice of Related Case

Attorneys for (continued):
California Hospital Association, California Dental Association, California Association for Adult Day Services, American College of Emergency Physicians, State Chapter of California, Inc.; California Pharmacists Association, and California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems

I047691.I

• • Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 79 of 88

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Independent Living Center of Southern California

CASE NUMBER:

8S114459

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandra Shewry

Page ID #:79
CM-015

2. (continued)

0 0 0 0 0 e. Case type:

limited civil

unlimited civil

probate

family law

f. Filing date:

g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?"

DYes 0

No

other (specify):

h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply):

o

involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.

o

arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of

the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.

o o

involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. is likely for other reasons to require sUbstantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

o Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h

o i. Status of case: pending

o 0 0 dismissed

with

o disposed of by judgment

without prejudice

3. a. Title:

b. Case number:

0 c. Court:
o

same as above other state or federal court (name and address):

d. Department:
0 e. Case type:

limited civil

o 0 unlimited civil

0 0 probate

family law

f. Filing date:

0 0 g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?"

Yes

No

other (specify):

h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check a/l that apply):

o

involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.

o

arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, inCidents, or events requiring the determination of

the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.

o

involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.

o

is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

o Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h

i. Status of case:

o

pending

o

0 dismissed

with

o without prejudice

o §disposed of by judgment

;

./

0 4.

A~itional related cases are described in Attachment 4. Number of pages attached: _ _ __

~:?c

Date: May 6.,,f,t,2008 :<5 Jordan B. Keville
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)

CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2oo7J

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Page Z of 3
American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com

• • Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 80 of 88

r- PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: Independent Living Center of Southern California

CASE NUMBER:
6S114459

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandra Shewry,

Page ID #:80
CM-015

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Related Case if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service. The notice must be served on all known parties in each related action or proceeding.)

1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed In the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify):

2. I served a copy of the Notice of Related Case by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with first-class postage fully

prepaid and (check one):

D a.

deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.

b. [8J

placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.

d , 3. The Notice of Related Case was mailed:

a. on (date): May

2008

b. from (city and state): Los Angeles, California

4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:

a. Name of person served: Sandra Shewry, Director c. Name of person served: Lynn S. Carman

Street address: Dept. of Health Care Services 1501 Capitol Avenue, Ste 6001
City: Sacramento
State and zip code: CA 95814

Street address: Medicaid Defense Fund 28 Newport Landing Drive
City: Novato
State and zip code: CA 94949-8214

b. Name of person served: Timothy Cornforth
Street address: Dept. of Health Care Services 1501 Capitol Avenue MS 0010
City: Sacramento State and zip code: CA 95814

d. Name of person served: Stanley L. Friedman
Street address: 445 South Figueroa Street 27'" Floor
City: Los Angeles State and zip code: CA 90071-1631

D Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

ZW, Date: May

2008

~

Patti Newler'
( # OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) t,} :s..~

,GNATURE7FDECLARAtfn

CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007]

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Page 3 of3
AmeriCS!n LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorld1ow.com

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 81 of 88 Page ID #:81
EXHIBIT - G

MAYC-caOs-ce0028:(0TU8-Ec)v-1003:c3463-CAONSE-MLEAGANL Document 1 Filed 05/2(1F/A0X8)1+PSaI0g+e87832+0o9f8488 PagePI.D00#4/:08120
<:?~fn
.fTfKII. (j::'/~ca

• 8,-..!Ic...I..
0~",,-11,1~":\
!-oo z• .I.I.I e,.. -ID :V=lC0III-'!
8:l1Q:l:i~i. !i!i,~;-c
1o!Ili: ~.
i3z:1>i1:'1":'1r11'I:-ij-"I'l---....... Ift
15~rfZtZ I!l0l_lo'''
8 111' -<"1,tI-
l:;mO •• - ... 1..111
l-

I llOYD A. BOOKMAN (State Bar No. 89251) BYRON J. GROSS (State Bar No. 76626)
:z JORDAN B. KEVILLE (State Bar No~ 2] 7868)
HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, INC.
3 1875 Century Park Eas[. Suite 1600
Los Angeles. California 90067~2S 17
4 Telephone: (310) 551·8111
Facsimile: (310) 551-8181
5 E~MaiI: jkevllle@health-Iaw.com

6 CRAIG J. CANNIZZO (State Bar No. 70379) FELICIA Y SZE (State Bar No. 233441)
7 HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, INC. 575 Markel StreeL. Suite 2300
8 San Francisco, CA 94 J05 Telephone: (415) 875-8500
9 Facsimile: (415) 87Sft8519 E-Mail: ccruinizm@hculth-liiw.com
10
Attomeys for Petitioners
11

12

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIJi~ORNIA

13

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

14

15 CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIA'f10N;
16 CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOClAnON; CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR ADULT
17 DA Y SERVICES; AMERICAN COLLEGE
'OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, STATE
t8 CHAPTER OF CAJ...lFORNlA, INC.;
CALIFORNIA PHARMACISTS
19 ASSOCIATION; and CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC HOSPITALS
20 AND HEALTH SYSTEMS,

CASE NO. BC390126
NOTICE OF ORDER

21

Petitioners.

22

vs.

23 SANDRA SHEWRY, Dire"tor ofLhe
Department of Hcallh Cite Services, State of 24 california; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES.
2S Respondents.
26

27

28

1047911,1

NOTICE OF ORDER

1094581Q,tn· 51201200810:35:37 AM

Case 2:08-cv-03363-CAS-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 83 of 88 Page ID #:83

MAY-20-2008(TUE) 10:25 ONE LEGAL

(FAX)lt510t873t0984

P,005/010

·8!: ;;iii
Iii ~_1-II~1I4't:)' • III III

~t::1o0a-

Illlll.'l

f!8CQ: ~•!jox'"t'

i5<i- 16

11.1 0 IlIf: .to-.

'" •

9)D.o .;U '"

,;.tG:III.

::J1II-

1ilZ-.III!1ID4

8~~cZ s... 11 .(11)

,.. III -

:CillO ..

-.1..1

11.1

~

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEm. A1"TORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 14, 2008, the Court issued the allachcd Order.

3

4 DATED: May 20, 2008

5

6

'7

8

9. 10

11
12

13

14

15 16'

17

18

19

20

21

22

13
24

2S 26

27
28

11.l47914.1

2
NOTICE OF ORDER '

10945810.tn·512012008 10:35:37 AM

"'I" C.. nas':e)"n2o:/0T8Il-tc'\v-I0n.3::>3!6: 3-CAn~lSI:-MI 1A:';'N01 Document 1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 84 of 88 PagePI.D00#6:/80140
Exhibit
10945810.1"•51201200810:35:37 AM

MAYC-2a0s-2e0028:(0T8U-Ec)v-0103:32653-CAONSE-MLEAGNAL Document 1 Filed 05/21(F/0A8X)I+P5a1g0+e88735+0o9f8848 Page PI.D00#7:180510

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.' COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

DA.TE: OS/H/OB

DEPT. 324

HONORABLE. VICTORIA CHANEY

JUOOE E. SABA1..oBUR,O

11l'JXi1! PitO TI!loI

NONE

~t)' Sheri NONE

$:)0 am aC390126
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
AL VS SANDRA SHEWRY ET AL

Plaintiff CWIIJ./ll
DtrI\::ndalll C_l

DEEMED COMPLEX (05-14-08)

NO APPEARANCES

COURT ORDER.

This Court makes its dete~minacion whether or not this case should be deemed complex: pu.;r;suat.\t to Rule 3.400 .of the California Rules of Court .

. This ~ase is designated complex and is reassigned to Judge William F. Hlghbe~ger in Department 307 at Central Civil West courthouse for ~ll turther proceedings.

Notice of Initial Status Conference is to be given by the Clerk in Department 307. Until the order setting th$ Initial Status Conference is issuod, no responsive pleadings may he ~iled and all aiscovery ~a stayed. Pa~~ies may file a Notice of Appearance in . ~ieu'of an answer or responsive pleading. Nothing herein stays t.he time for filing at! affidavit. of prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil P~ocedure section
170.6.

Pursuant co Government Code.section 70616(c), each
party is ordered to pay $550.00 for complex fees, payable to Los Angeles Superior court, within ten (lO) calendar daY:;lI of serv1ce of thi!;l minute orde~.

Plaintiff is or.dered to serve a copy of thi~ minute

order on all parcies forthwith and file a proof of

service in the a$signed department within seven (7)

days o't serv1ce.

.

Page 1. of 3 DEPT. 3:l4

MINtl'l'ES ENTEUD 05/14/09
COtJNTY Ct.DK

10945810.lff· 5/20120081 0:35:37 AM

== MAYC-a20s-e20208:0(T8U-cEv) -0130:32653-CAOSNE-MLAEGNAL Document 1 Filed 05/21(F/0A8X)1P+5a1g0e+88763+o0f98848 -=:

8;30 am BC190126

Plaillliff

COIIn.K'I

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

NO APPEARANCES

AL

Dd'CIldun!

VS

C\lurq,:1

SANORA SHSWRY ET AL

Page PID0#08:8/061n

DERMBD COMPLEX (05-14-08)

Any party objecting to the complex designation must file an objection and proof of service in Department 324 within ten (10)' days of service of this minute 'order. Any response to the objection must be filed in Department 324 wi I:hin st:ven (7) days of service of the objection. This Court will m~ke ita ~uling on the submitted pleadings.
C~SRK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAI~INGI NOIIC~ OF ENTRY OF ORDER
,r, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above·entitled court,' do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above nunute order ot
05-14-08 upon eacb party or counsel named below by depositing in the United Stat$$ mail at the courthouse in Los Angeles, Califo~ia, one copy of the original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope for each, ~ddresscd as shown below with·the postage th$reon fully prepaid.
Date: 05.-14-08
John A. Clarke. Sxecucive Officer/Clerk

By:

KINNlLAJ~

KIN TilLAlRE

Page 2 of :5 DEPT. 324

Ml:NO"l'ES :s:N"l'ERED 05/14/08 COtrNTY CLii:Rlt

10945810.trr· 51201200810:35:37 AM

MACY-a2s0-e2020:S0(T8U-cEv) -01303:2653-CAOSNE-MlEAGNAL Document 1 Filed 05/21(F/0A8X)1P+5a1g0e+S8773+o0f98848 Page IPD.00#9:8/0710

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

o"n:.! 05/1.4/0e
HONOJtABL.E VICTORIA CHANEY

SVOG£ E • SASALSURO

DEfT. 324

1I0NORAlJLB

JUOOE PRO TEM

NONE

De!IIIry Sha'iIT NONE

8:30 am BC39012Ei "'

Plainllff .

Ii

CoulISlll

CAL!FORN1A MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

NO APPEARANCES

AT" VS

SAN.DRA SHBWRY 'ET AL

DEEMED COMPLEX (05-14-09)

NA'I'URE OF PRocaDJNGS~

HOOPER. LUNDY & BOOKMAN, INC. Lloyd A. Bookman. Esq. 1B75 Century Park East, Suite 1600
1·Los Angeles, California 90067

page :3 of 3 DEPT. 324

KImJTES DTERED 05/14/08
COUNTY CL:e:l'Ut

10945810.tff· 5/201200810:35:37 AM

MRYC-a2s0-e2020:80(T8U-cEv) -01303:2653-CAOSNE-MLAEGNRL Document 1 Filed 05/21(/F0R8X)IP+5a1g0e+88783+o0f98848 Page IPD.0#10:8/0810
~ ~J.n.A.r.. v .... "n.Ll.l'Vl'-1.'I.I.A, \..,UUl" J r ur LU;:) ANl:i.l!iLl!:S

..
·8-=t- lO
~01.0.. 1t:''!;;'
il:lI'I- >.",11\ ~ie III Ii'!
" ID~~~ :8It: ~-< 516 :1t1/I:i-. •
<..I ..
lI."_ ~>-u_
3 c:;: I:-!II!-I !t. [5.> ..I 11
§. . . ; D.luIIIzlII:O!1-ft "~'1g/1.J... UI I-

3

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of

eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1875 Century Park

4 East. Suite 1600. Los Angeles. California 90067-2517.

5

On May 20, 2008, I served the following document(s) described as NOnCE OF ORDER

6

on

the

interested

parties

in

tillS

actio~
.

addressed

os

follo. ws;

Sandra Shewryt Director

7

Department of Health Care Services

1501 Capitol Avenue. Suite 6001

, 8

MSOOOO
Sacramento, CA 95814

Edmund G•.Brown, Jr., Esq.

10

Attorney General

California State Attorney Genera.rs Office

11

1300 r Street, Suite 125

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

12

BY MESSENGER: 1 provided such docurnent(s) to a professional messenger service for service.

13

I declare under.penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Catifomia tha1 the

14 foregoing is true and correct.

.

15

Executed on May 20. 2008t at Los Angeles, California.

16

17

18

19

20
:u

22

23

24

2S

26
27

28

1047?14.1

NOTICE OF ORDER

10945810.tn· 5/201200810:35:37 AM

 
 Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 1 of 8
(MANx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,RELATED−G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−03363−CAS−MAN

California Medical Association et al v. Sandra Shewry et al

Date Filed: 05/21/2008

Assigned to: Judge Christina A. Snyder

Date Terminated: 06/23/2008

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle

Jury Demand: None

Related Case: 2:08−cv−03315−CAS−MAN

Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory

Case in other court: Superior Court of CA for the County of Los Angeles, BC390126

Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Cause: 28:1441 Notice of Removal − Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

Petitioner

California Medical Association

represented by Byron J Gross Hooper Lundy & Bookman Watt Plaza 1875 Century Park E, Ste 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067−2799 310−551−8111 Fax: 310−551−8181 Email: byronjgross@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig J Cannizzo Hooper Lundy and Bookman PC 575 Market Street 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−875−8500 Fax: 415−875−8519 Email: ccannizzo@health−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia Y Sze Rotenberg & Sze 572 17th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94121 415−686−7531 Email: felicia@rshealthlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jordan Brian Keville Hooper Lundy & Bookman PC Watt Plaza 1875 Century Park East Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067−2799 310−551−8111 Fax: 310−551−8181 Email: jkeville@health−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lloyd Alan Bookman Hooper Lundy and Bookman PC 1875 Century Park East Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−551−8111 Fax: 310−551−8181 Email: lbookman@health−law.com

Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 2 of 8

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner California Hospital Association

represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig J Cannizzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia Y Sze (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lloyd Alan Bookman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner California Dental Association

represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig J Cannizzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia Y Sze (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lloyd Alan Bookman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
California Association For Adult Day Services

represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig J Cannizzo (See above for address)

Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 3 of 8

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia Y Sze (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lloyd Alan Bookman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
American College of Emergency Physicians, Inc.

represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig J Cannizzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia Y Sze (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lloyd Alan Bookman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner State Chapter of California, Inc.

represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig J Cannizzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia Y Sze (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 4 of 8

Petitioner California Pharmacists Association
Petitioner California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems
Petitioner California Medical Association, et al.

Lloyd Alan Bookman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig J Cannizzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Felicia Y Sze (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lloyd Alan Bookman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig J Cannizzo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Felicia Y Sze (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lloyd Alan Bookman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Byron J Gross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 5 of 8

Jordan Brian Keville (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Respondent Sandra Shewry Director of the Department of Health Care Services, State of California
Respondent California Department of Health Care Services

represented by Phillip J Matsumoto Office of the Attorney General 300 South Spring Street 9 North Los Angeles, CA 90013 213−897−2454 Email: phillip.matsumoto@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz Los Angeles City Attorney's Office Business and Complex Litigation 200 North Main Street City Hall East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7564 Fax: 213−978−7011 Email: sara.ugaz@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara L Newman CAAG − Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice 300 South Spring Street Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013−1230 213−269−6216 Fax: 213−897−2805 Email: tara.newman@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Phillip J Matsumoto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara L Newman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/21/2008

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of CA for the County of Los Angeles, case number BC390126 with CONFORMED FILED copy of summons and complaint. Case assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer, Discovery to Magistrate Judge Carolyn

Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 6 of 8

05/21/2008 05/21/2008 05/21/2008 05/21/2008 05/21/2008 05/21/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008
05/23/2008 05/23/2008 05/23/2008
05/27/2008 05/27/2008
05/27/2008
05/28/2008

Turchin. (Filing fee $ 350 PAID. ), filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services. (et) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/29/2008: # 1 Notice of Assignment, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) (ds). (Entered: 05/23/2008)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services. (et) (ds). (Entered: 05/23/2008)
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Respondents Notice to Adverse Party of Removal to Federal Court filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services, served on 5/21/2008. (et) (ds). (Entered: 05/23/2008)
4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
FAX number for Attorney Lloyd A Bookman, Byron J Gross, Jordan Brian Keville is 310−551−8181. (et) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
FAX number for Attorney Craig J Cannizzo, Felicia Y Sze is 415−875−8519. (et) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
FAX number for Attorney Phillip J Matsumoto, Tara L Newman, Sara Ugaz is 213−897−2805. (et) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
5 STANDING ORDER For Cases Assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer 1 . (bm) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
6 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Date: 7/14/08 Time: 11:00 a.m. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES (see document for further details). (bm) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
7 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services. Related Case(s): 08−03315 (Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
8 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying NONE as Corporate Parent. (Gross, Byron) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
9 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing filed by Petitioners California Medical Association, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Ex Parte Application# 2 Declaration Declaration of Byron J. Gross re Notice# 3 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application)(Gross, Byron) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
10 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services. Re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing 9 (Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
11 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND WRIT OF MANDATE filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services.(Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
12 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event is Motions and Related Filings / Responses/Replies. In response to this notice the court may order: (1) an amended or corrected document to be filed; (2) the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. RE: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition (non−motion) 10 . (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
13 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dale S. Fischer re Order DENYING Petitioners' Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time For Scheduling of Motion To Remand 9 : On May 23, 2008, Petitioners filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time For Scheduling of Motion To Remand (Motion). As Petitioners have not filed the motion they seek to expedite, the Court cannot properly evaluate the request. The Court therefore DENIES Petitioners Motion. (bm) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 7 of 8

05/28/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008
05/30/2008
05/30/2008
06/02/2008 06/03/2008 06/09/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008

14 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 −Related Case− filed. Related Case No: CV 08−3315 CAS (MANx). Case transfered from Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Carolyn Turchin to Judge Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 08−3363 CAS (MANx).Signed by Judge Christina A. Snyder (rn) Modified on 5/30/2008 (at). (Entered: 05/28/2008)
15 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing to June 16, 2008 on Motion for Remand filed by PETITIONERS California Dental Association, California Association For Adult Day Services, American College of Emergency Physicians, Inc., State Chapter of California, Inc., California Pharmacists Association, California Medical Association, California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, California Medical Association, et al., California Hospital Association.(Keville, Jordan) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
16 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing on to June 16, 2008 on Motion for Remand filed by PETITIONERS California Dental Association, California Association For Adult Day Services, American College of Emergency Physicians, Inc., State Chapter of California, Inc., California Pharmacists Association, California Medical Association, California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, California Medical Association, et al., California Hospital Association. Motion set for hearing on 6/23/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Christina A. Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration OF BYRON J. GROSS, # 2 Proposed Order)(Keville, Jordan) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
17 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT filed by PETITIONERS California Dental Association, California Association For Adult Day Services, American College of Emergency Physicians, Inc., State Chapter of California, Inc., California Pharmacists Association, California Medical Association, California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, California Medical Association, et al., California Hospital Association. Motion set for hearing on 6/23/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Christina A. Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Keville, Jordan) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
18 OF SERVICE filed by PETITIONERS California Dental Association, California Association For Adult Day Services, American College of Emergency Physicians, Inc., State Chapter of California, Inc., California Pharmacists Association, California Medical Association, California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, California Medical Association, et al., California Hospital Association, re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing to June 16, 2008 on Motion for Remand 15 , MOTION to Remand Case to LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 17 , MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing on to June 16, 2008 on Motion for Remand 16 served on May 30, 2008. (Keville, Jordan) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
19 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing to June 16, 2008 on Motion for Remand 15 filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services. (Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
20 DENIED BY ORDER of Judge Christina A. Snyder Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Scheduling of Motion for Remand 15 . (gk) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
21 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Remand Case to LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 17 filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services. (Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
22 REPLY to OPPOSITION to MOTION to Remand Case to LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 17 filed by Petitioner California Medical Association, et al.. (Gross, Byron) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
23 DECLARATION of CRAIG J. CANNIZZO re Abstention in Support of MOTION to Remand Case to LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 17 filed by Petitioner California Medical Association, et al.. (Gross, Byron) (Entered: 06/16/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-3363 As of: 10/27/2017 07:08 AM PDT 8 of 8

06/18/2008 06/19/2008
06/23/2008 06/23/2008
07/07/2008 11/05/2013

24 OF SERVICE filed by Petitioners California Medical Association, et al., re Declaration (Motion related) 23 , Reply (Motion related) 22 served on June 17, 2008. (Gross, Byron) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
25 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Petitoner's Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, and Writ of Mandate filed by Respondents Sandra Shewry, California Department of Health Care Services. Motion set for hearing on 7/14/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Christina A. Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dimiss, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Request for Judicial Notice)(Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
26 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing on Petitioner's Motion for Remand 17 held before Judge Christina A. Snyder. Motion is taken under submission. The Court will issue a final order. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (cj) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
27 ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court finds and concludes that petitioners' claims for relief do not give rise to a federal question, such that this action was improperly removed from state court. The Court GRANTS Petitioners' Motion to Remand 17 ; remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC 390126. ( MD JS−6. Case Terminated ) (Attachments: # 1 CV−103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
28 Receipt of copy of remand transmittal letter from Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. CV BC 390126, acknowledging receipt on 6/27/2008. (gk) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
29 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)

 
 7123/13
Case Summary

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

Please make a note ofthe Case Number.
Click here to access document images for this case. Ifthis link fails, ~u may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.
case Number: BC390126 C.AL..IFORNIAMEDICALPSSOCIATION ET AL VS S.ANDRASHEWRYET .AI..
Rllng Date: 05105/2008 case Type: Injunct Relief-not Dom/Harrassmt (General Jurisdiction) Status: Pending
Future Hearings
12/23/2013 at09:00 am in department307 at600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA90005 Non-Appearance (Case Review)(C/F 12-17-12C/F 6/1 0/13)

Documents Filed 1Proceeding Information Parties .AARP - Objector .AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION -Attorney for Objector AMERIC.AN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICI.ANS - Petitioner ATTORNEY GENER.AI... -Attorney for Respondent C.AL... PSSOC. FOR ADULT DAY SERVICES- Petitioner C.AI.... PSSOC. OF PUB. HOSP.S & HE.AI...TH SYS.- Petitioner C.AL... DEPT. OF HE.AI...TH CARE SERVICES- Respondent C.AL..IFORNIADENT.AI... ASSOCIATION- Petitioner C.AL..IFORNIAHOSPIT.AI... ASSOCIATION- Petitioner C.AL..IFORNIAMEDICAL ASSOCIATION- Petitioner C.AI...IFORNIAPH.ARM6.CISTS ASSOCIATION- Petitioner ERIN BERNSTEIN -Interested Party
HOOPER LUNDY &BOOKMAN INC. [L. A]- Attorney for Petitioner HOOPER LUNDY &BOOKMAN INC. [S. F.]- Attorney for Petitioner
SHEWRY S.ANDRA- Respondent STATE CHAPTER OF CALIFORNIA INC.- Petitioner

Case Information 1Party Information 1Proceeding Information

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

1/11

7123/13
Please make a note ofthe Case Number.

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

Click here to access document images for this case. Ifthis link fails, ~u may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

Click on anyof the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated: 12/08/2009 07/23/2008

05/06/2013 Stipulation and Order (JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

03/12/2013 Order (TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

03/11/2013 Report-Status (JOINT) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

12/19/2012 Order(ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFER (from 12-17-12 to 03-18-13 at 10:00 a.am)) Filed by Clerk

12/17/2012 Report-Status (JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: US SUPREME COURT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND STIP & PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE (contin S.C.from 12-17-12 to 3-1813 at 10 a.m.)) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

09/18/2012 Stipulation and Order (JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: U.S. SUPREI\..E COURT PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI AND STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

06/21/2012 Order (TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

06/20/2012 Stipulation (JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

03/21/2012 Order(ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

03/20/2012 Report-Status (JOINT status report re: U.S. Supreme Court petitions for Certiorari and stip and [proposed) order to centS/C) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

01/18/2012 Order(ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

01/17/2012 Stipulation (JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI AND STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

10/18/2011 Order(ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

10/17/2011 Report-Status (JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI AND STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

02/16/2011 Order(ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE)

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

2/11

7123/13 Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

02/14/2011 Report-Status (JOINT status report re: U.S. Supreme Court petitions for Certiorari and stip and [proposed] order to centS/C) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent
01/04/2011 Stipulation and Order (RE TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

10/06/2010 Stipulation and Order (RE TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/14/2010 Stipulation and Order (JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

02/18/2010 Stipulation and Order (JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

Click on anyof the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated: TOP 12/0812009 0712312008

12/08/2009 Stipulation and Order (JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

09/11/2009 Stipulation and Order (JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

06/02/2009 Brief (fourth status conf brief) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

04/15/2009 Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/15/2009 First Amended Complaint (FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR (1) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (2) DECLARATORY RELIEF (3) WRIT OF MANDATE) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/08/2009 Remittitur (DISMISSED REMITTITUR ISSUED ON 4-3-09 .APPEAl. FILED 8-25-08 IS DISMISSED SIT D-307 CCWON 4-14-09) Filed by Clerk

02/04/2009 Brief (3rd status conference brief) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

02/02/2009 Report-Status (for status report) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

12/02/2008 Ntc to Prty re fee Clk's Transept Filed by Clerk
11/18/2008 Declaration (of Jordan B. Keville re notice & basis for relief re ex parte application to continue
hearing on motion for judgment on the pleadings ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

11/18/2008 Ex-Parte pt::lplication (to continue hearing on respondents' motion for judgment on pleadings) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

3111

7123/13

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

11/1812008 Memorandum -other (memorandum of points & authorities in support of ex parte application to

continue hearing on respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings )

Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

11/1812008 Opposition Document (RESPONDENTS' MEI\o10RANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SEEKING CONT. OF RESPONDENTS' MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS;DECL OF GREGORY C.) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

11/1212008 Points and Authorities (IN SUPPORT OF Pv10TION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

11/12/2008 Motion (For Judgment on the Pleadings) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

10/0812008 Ntc to Reptr/Mon to Prep Transcrpt
Filed by Clerk

09/0212008 Ntc to Atty re Notice of Appeal
Filed by Clerk

0812812008 Report-Status Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

08/26/2008 Notice of Designation of Record (on appeal ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

0812612008 Brief (2nd status conference brief) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

0812512008 Notice of Appeal Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/15/2008 Proof of Service (RE: COURT ORDER RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2008) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/0512008 Memorandum -other (of points & authorities in opposition to petitioners' ex parte application for
order seeking temporary stay of order denying motion for preliminary injunction and separate request...) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

08/05/2008 Declaration (of Jordan B. Keville re notice & basis for relieff re ex parte application for tern porary stay) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

08/0512008 Proof of Service (for ex parte application for tern porary stay, memo of points & authorities; declaration of Jordan J. Keville: [proposed] order thereon ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

08/0512008 E.Parte Application (for temporary stay) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

08/0512008 Memorandum -other (&authorities in support of ex parte application for temporary stay) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/29/2008 Order (ORDER DENYING Pv10TION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byCourt

0712512008 Brief (of Amici Curiae The City and County of San Francisco, et. al. in support of petitioners' motion for preliminary injunction; declarations in support ofAmicis Curiae Brief) Filed by Interested Party

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

4111

7123/13

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

07/24/2008 Notice (OF ERRATA RE: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AI\JD AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/24/2008 Supplemental Declaration (OF KEVIN GOROSPE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

Click on anyof the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated: TOP 12/08/2009 07/23/2008

07/23/2008 Declaration (OF KEVIN GRUM3ACH,M.D., IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/23/2008 Notice (OF ERRATA: SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF DECLARATIONS) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/23/2008 Objection (TO RESPONDENTS' SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Proof of Service (RE PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF AI\JD SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITIED IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Objection (TO RESPONDENTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Response (TO RESPONDENTS' OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITIED IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Response (TO RESPONDENTS' OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Objection (TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITIED BY RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Miscellaneous-Other (SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIM. INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Brief-Reply(IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/22/2008 Request for Judicial Notice (SUPPLEMENTAL REQ. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/22/2008 Request for Judicial Notice (SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/18/2008 Miscellaneous-Other (SCHEDULE OF DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (VOLUME 2 OF 2 (DECLARATIONS 6-11) ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)11Stlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

5111

7123/13

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

07/1812008 Order(on media request to pennitcoverage- GRANTED *signed by Judge Highberger* -Filed by Courtroom View Network-) Filed by Interested Party

07/1812008 Miscellaneous-Other (SCHEDULE OF DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (VOLUME 1 OF 2 (DECLARATIONS 1-5)) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/1712008 Declaration (ofB~n J. Gross in support of AARP's ex parte application for (1)an order shortening time for hearing on motion to file amicus brief; (2)order setting date certain that opposition to AARP..) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/17/2008 Order (granting AARP's ex parte application for: (1 )an order shortening time for hearing on motion to file amicus brief, (2) order setting date certain that opposition to AARP's brief is due) Filed by Interested Party

07/1712008 Brief(Amicus Brief of AARP in support of petitioners *signed by Judge Highberger*) Filed by Interested Party

07/1712008 Notice (OF ERRATA) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/1712008 Opposition Document (to ex parte application for an order shortening time for hearing on motion to file amicus brief and for order setting date certain that opposition to AARP's brief is due) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

07/1712008 ~Parte Application (FOR [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AARP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: {1 )an order shortening time for hearing on motion to file amicus brief; (2)order setting date certain that
opposition to AARP's)
Filed by Interested Party

07/1712008 Declaration (of Barbara A Jones in support of ex parte application for proposed order granting
AARP's ex parte application for: (1 )an order shortening time for hearing on motion to file amicus hearing)
Filed by Interested Party

07/1612008 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,ET AI... ) Filed by Interested Party

07/1612008 Motion for Leave {TO FILEAMISCUS BRIEF AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS BY THE CITY& COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,ET AI...; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF) Filed by Interested Party

07/1612008 Proof of Service (REPROPOSED AMICI CURIAE BRIE,ETC.) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/1612008 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/1612008 Points and .Authorities (MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/16/2008 Response {TO MEDIA REQUEST TO PHOTOGRAPH, RECORD OR BROMJCAST PROCEEDINGS ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/1612008 Objection Document {TO PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

6111

7123/13
I\.10TION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

07/16/2008 Objection Document (TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

07/1012008 Response (Petitioners' Response to Media Request) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0912008 Order (respondents' ex parte application for an order extending briefing dates &continuing hearing on petitioners' motion for prelimi-nary injunction *signed by Judge Highberger*) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

07/0912008 Opposition Document (to respondents' ex parte application to extend time for response to motion for preliminary injunction ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0912008 ~Parte Application (for an order extending briefing dates & continuing hearing on petitioners' motion for prelimi-nary injunction; notice thereof; memo of points &authorities &declarations of RichardT. Waldow) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

07/0912008 Opposition Document (petitioners' supplemental opposition to respondents' ex parte application for order extending briefing dates & continue hearing dae on petitioners' motion for ...) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Declaration (Petitioners' Schedule of Declarations in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Volume 5 of6 [Decls. 66-68]) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Declaration (Petitioners' Schedule of Declarations in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Volume 4 of6 [Decls. 51-65]) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/01/2008 Declaration (Petitioners' Schedule of Declarations in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Volume 3 of6 [Decls. 40-50]) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Declaration (Petitioners' Schedule of Declarations in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Volume 2 of6 [Decls. 12-39]) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Declaration (Petitioners' Schedule of Declarations in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Volume 1 of6 [Decls. 1-11]) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Answer to Com plaint
Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

07/0112008 Notice of 1\tt:ltion (by Petitioners for a Preliminary Injunction) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Proof of Service (of Petitioners' 1\tt:ltion for a Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Papers) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Points and Authorities (in Support of Petitioners' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

07/0112008 Declaration (Petitioners' Schedule of Declarations in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Volume 6 of6 [Decls. 69-87])

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

7/11

7123/13
Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

07/01/2008 Request for Judicial Notice (in Support of Petitioners' Mltion for a Preliminary Injunction ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

06130/2008 Motion for Leaw (to file Amicus Curiae briefbyAARP in support of petitioners; mpa) Filed by Interested Party

06/27/2008 Order (Remanding the ktion to the Los IVlgeles County Superior Court [from the Federal District Court]) Filed byCourt

06/26/2008 Declaration (of Jordan B.Ke'Jille re ntc and basis for relief re ex parte application ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

06/26/2008 &-Parte ,6pplication ((1) elCpedited initial S/C (2) order shortening time for mtn for preliminary injunction (3) for permission to exceed normal page limits for briefs ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

06/26/2008 Order (granting ex parte application for: (1) elCpedited Initial Status Conference; (2) order shortening time for hearing on motion for preliminary injunction; and (3)for permission to exceed normal page) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

06/26/2008 Points and Authorities (mpa in support of ex parte applic) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

06/1112008 Notice of Ruling Filed byAttorneyfor Defendant/Respondent

05/23/2008 Notice (OF WITHDRAWAL OF EXPARTEAPPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED SETTING OF INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

0512212008 Declaration (ofB~n J. Gross re notice [California Rules ofCourt3.1-203 -204]) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

05/22/2008 Declaration (of B~n J. Gross in support of ex parte application for elCpedited setting of initial status conference ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

0512212008 Ex-Parte ,6pplication (for elCpedited initial status conference) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

05/22/2008 Memorandum- Other(ofpoints and authorities in supportofexparte application for expedited initial status conference ) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

0512112008 Ntc of Removal to Federal Court (ntc to adwrse party of removal of action to Federal Court) Filed byAttorneyfor Respondent

05/21/2008 Notice (of withdrawal ofexparte application for expedited setting of initial status conference *filed byfa)(*) Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

0512012008 Notice (OF ORDER ) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

05/15/2008 Notice (of related case- BS114459 filed- HOOPER,LUNDY &BOOKMAN INC for PLTFS)
Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

05/09/2008 Proof of Ser'Jice (SANDRASHEWRY,DIRECTOR OF THE DEPT.OF HEALTH SERVICES,STATE OF

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

8111

7123/13
C.AL..IFORNIA) Filed by.Attorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

05/09/2008 Proof of Service (C.AL..IFORNIASTATEATTORNEYGENER.Al...) Filed byAttorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

05/0512008 Complaint Filed byAttorneyfor Petitioner

Click on anyof the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP 12/0812009 0712312008

Case Information I Party Information I Documents Filed
Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
Click on anyof the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date indicated:
08/0512008
12/1712012 at 10:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding
Further Status Conference (CIF 10/20/11 C/F 1/19/12C/F 3/26/12CIF 6/25/12CIF 9/24/12contin to 3-18-13 10:00
a.m.)- Continued byCourt
01/1912012 at 10:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Further Status Conference (CIF 10120/11)- Continued by Stipulation
02/1712011 at 10:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Further Status Conference (*CONTINUED TO 10120/11 AT 10:00 AM)- Continued by Stipulation
01/0412011 at 10:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order (RE JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TOCONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE)- Completed
10/0612010 at03:30 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order (RE JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TOCONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE)- Completed
06/1812010 at 10:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Further Status Conference- Completed
04/1412010 at03:00 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order (RE JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TOCONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE)- Completed
02/1812010 at 11:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Further Status Conference- Continued by Stipulation
12/0812009 at04:30 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order (RE JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TOCONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE)- Completed
09/1112009 at03:00 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order (RE JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TOCONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE)- Completed
06/0512009 at09:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Further Status Conference (FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE)- Completed
04/1512009 at 11:00 am in Department 307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order (RE STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILEAFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ANDPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE)- Completed
02/0612009 at 11:30 am in Department 307, William F. Highberger, Presiding
Further Status Conference (and Motion for Judgment on thePieadings (deferred to this datefor TRACKING
PURPOSES ONLY))- Held-Continued

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

9111

7123/13

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

12/22/2008 at 11:00 am in Department 307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Further Status Conference- Hearing prev advanced & vacated

12/19/2008 at02:30 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Telephonic Conference - Court makes order

12/12/2008 at08:30 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order- Court makes order

12/11/2008 at08:30 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Motion (For Judgment on the Pleadings) - Hearing prev advanced & vacated

11/18/2008 at 08:30am in Department 307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Exparte proceeding - Granted

09/05/2008 at09:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Non-Appearance (Case Review) (*regarding status of removal)- Hearing prev advanced & vacated

09/04/2008 at09:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Status Conference - Held-Continued

Click on anyof the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date indicated: TOP 08/05/2008

08/05/2008 at 01:30pm in Department 307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Exparte proceeding - Denied

08/01/2008 at05:30 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order- Court makes order

07/29/2008 at08:30 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Ruling on Submitted Matter- Court makes order

07/25/2008 at 11:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding IV10TION/J'IPPL-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (-set by ex parte application on 6/26/08-)- Submitted-Orally Argued

07/24/2008 at 01:30pm in Department 307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Motion for an Order (TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BYJ\ARP IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS;owBARBARA JONES 62658526280/C BRIEF ALREADY FILED. MOOT)- Hearing prevadvanced & vacated

07/18/2008 at06:00 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Non-Appearance (Case Review) -Order is signed and filed

07/17/2008 at08:30 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Exparte proceeding - Granted

07/09/2008 at08:30 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Exparte proceeding - Court makes order

06130/2008 at 10:00 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Initial Status Conference- Court makes order

06/26/2008 at08:30 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Ex Parte Motion - Granted in Part

05/28/2008 at05:30 pm in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Court Order- Court makes order

05/22/2008 at08:30 am in Department307, William F. Highberger, Presiding Exparte proceeding - Off Calendar

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

1QI11

7123/13

L.ASC - Case SUIT1'l'&J'

05/1412008 at08:30 am in Department324, VICTORIACH.ANEY, Presiding Court Order- Court makes order

Click on anyof the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date indicated: TOP 08/05/2008

Case Information 1 Party Information 1 Documents Filed 1Proceeding Information

WNN.Iasuperiorcourtorg/ci\41casesurri'TlBI)1'lStlui/pop1.4:1CaseSulmary.aspx

11/11