Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00432/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00432-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc.
Defendant
Gilsbar LLC
Defendant
Kern County Hospital Authority
Plaintiff
Kern Medical Center
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF KERN, a political 

subdivision of the State of California, 

which owns and operates KERN 

MEDICAL CENTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF 

CALIFORNIA, INC. and CIGNA 

HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00432-DAD-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND THE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 23)

This action currently proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) 

Therein, plaintiff in essence alleges that in 2014 it admitted six patients—all members of health 

plans sponsored by defendants—for medically necessary services, supplies, or equipment. (Id.

¶¶ 8–11; Doc. No. 11-1.) Plaintiff alleges that despite timely demands for payment, defendants 

failed to fully pay the charges associated with these patients and still owes plaintiff $325,680.43, 

excluding interest. (Doc. No. 11 ¶¶ 13–16.) 

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:16-cv-00432-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 3
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

On September 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend its first amended 

complaint. (Doc. No. 23.)1 Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint (see Doc. No. 23-2) 

appears to amend its prior complaint in two substantive ways. First, plaintiff states that as a result 

of the parties’ joint Rule 26(f) report and defendants’ service of their Rule 26(a) initial 

disclosures, plaintiff discovered that insurance coverage for patient W.W. (one of the six patients 

at issue) was provided at least in part by Gilsbar LLC at the relevant time. (Doc. Nos. 23 at 7–8; 

23-1 ¶¶ 7–8.) Plaintiff therefore seeks leave to amend its complaint to join Gilsbar LLC as a 

defendant in this action. Second, plaintiff notes that as of July 1, 2016, ownership of Kern 

Medical Center was transferred from the County of Kern to the Kern County Hospital Authority. 

(Doc. No. 23 at 8.) Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its first amended complaint to reflect this 

change in ownership. On October 13, 2014, defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the 

instant motion. (Doc. No. 24.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), this court deems plaintiff’s motion 

suitable for decision without oral argument.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that district courts “should freely give leave 

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be 

granted where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) 

produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysist 

West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.

1999)). “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 

902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 

U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971).

Here, there is nothing before the court to suggest bad faith or undue delay on the part of 

the plaintiff. Moreover, the court finds that the proposed amendments would not unduly 

prejudice defendants. Accordingly, the court finds good cause to grant plaintiff leave to amend 

its first amended complaint. 

/////

 

1

Plaintiffs’ motion was timely filed in accordance with the court’s scheduling order. (See Doc. 

No. 18.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00432-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

For the reasons set forth above, 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its first amended complaint (Doc. No. 23) is 

granted; and 

2. Plaintiff shall file its second amended complaint within five days of the date of service 

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00432-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3