NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HEALTHCARE ALLY MANAGEMENT 

OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 

MINNESOTA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-55899 

D.C. No. 

2:16-cv-07042-DMG-AFM 

MEMORANDUM*

HEALTHCARE ALLY MANAGEMENT 

OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 

MINNESOTA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-56246 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-05320-DMG-AFM 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 7, 2019

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

DEC 11 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-55899 

Pasadena, California

Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,** District 

Judge.

On separate dates between 2013 and 2016, nine patients received medical care

in California. Eight received care at La Peer Surgery Center (“La Peer”), and one 

received care elsewhere from Dr. Sanjay Khurana. Neither provider was paid to its 

satisfaction. They assigned their nonpayment and underpayment claims to 

Healthcare Ally Management of California, who then twice sued Blue Cross Blue 

Shield of Minnesota (“Blue Cross”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District 

of California. The court dismissed both lawsuits for lack of specific personal 

jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

1. The patients’ insurance contracts are insufficient to create specific personal 

jurisdiction. This case is materially different from Hirsch v. Blue Cross, Blue Shield 

of Kansas City, where we determined jurisdiction existed over the defendant 

insurance company. 800 F.2d 1474, 1482 (9th Cir. 1986). Unlike the plaintiffs in 

Hirsch, who obtained insurance from the defendant while they resided in the forum 

state, id. at 1476–77, 1479, six of the nine patients here were covered under plans 

administered -- but not insured -- by Blue Cross, and the other three patients were 

** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
3 18-55899 

insured through Blue Cross plans issued in Minnesota to Minnesota residents. At 

best, these relationships constitute merely “attenuated” connections between Blue 

Cross and California and are insufficient evidence of purposeful availment. Burger 

King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (quoting World-Wide 

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 299 (1980)). 

2. The phone calls between La Peer and Blue Cross also are insufficient 

evidence of purposeful availment. La Peer initiated the calls; Blue Cross did not 

“reach[] out” into California. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (quoting 

Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479). Moreover, Blue Cross did not promise to pay for the 

patients’ medical services during these calls, but instead merely confirmed that the 

patients were covered by the policies. 

3. The denial-of-benefits letter mailed by Blue Cross to Dr. Khurana is 

insufficient to create jurisdiction, too. In denying Khurana’s request for payment, 

Blue Cross did not create a meaningful connection with California. See Walden, 571 

U.S. at 285–86; Hunt v. Erie Ins. Grp., 728 F.2d 1244, 1248 (9th Cir. 1984).

AFFIRMED.