Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03756/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03756-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF HOSPITALS

AUXILIARY OF THE MEDICAL CENTER AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN

FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP et al.,

Defendants.

 

No. C 04-03756 MHP ARB

ORDER

Re: Supplemental Briefing

on Preemption

On September 26, 2005, defendants Principal Financial Group et al. and plaintiff Regents of

the University of California appeared for oral argument in connection with defendants’ motion to

dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At oral argument, the court noted that one

of plaintiff’s claims, under California Health & Safety Code section 1371.8, might be preempted by

federal Medicare law. In California Association of Health Plans v. Zingale, No. 00-06803, 2001

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21497 (C.D. Cal. August 27, 2001), the court held without discussion that many of

California’s state law standards for health care providers, including section 1371.8, are preempted by

section 1856(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act, 41 U.S.C. section 1395w-26(b)(3)(B). Id. at

*2–*3. In light of Zingale, this court requested supplemental briefing confined to the question of

whether section 1371.8 is preempted as plaintiff seeks to apply it in this case.

Case 3:04-cv-03756-MHP Document 33 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Instead, plaintiff submitted a nine-page brief discussing the “viability”—in other words, the

factual merits—of the section 1371.8 claim. The court will assume that plaintiff inadvertently

misconstrued the earlier order; for the sake of complete clarity this order sets forth in writing what is

expected. Plaintiff shall submit within 10 days one of the following: (1) a brief no greater than ten

pages in length explaining why section 1371.8 is not preempted in this case; or (2) a statement

voluntarily dismissing the section 1371.8 claim. Should plaintiff choose to submit a brief, the brief

will discuss only the jurisdictional question of preemption and will avoid any discussion of the

substantive merits of the 1371.8 claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 11, 2005

________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:04-cv-03756-MHP Document 33 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2