IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EILEEN FOX-QUAMME, individually

and on behalf of all others

similarly situated; LISA HESS,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated; MARY

REDFIELD, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly

situated; O.W., a minor child,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated; JEFF

CLARK, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated;

and LEIGH ANN CHAPMAN,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEALTH NET HEALTH PLAN OF OREGON,

INC., an Oregon corporation, and

AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH GROUP,

INC., a California corporation,

Defendants.

3:15-cv-01248-BR

 

ORDER

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion (#41) to

Dismiss First Amended Class Action Allegation Complaint filed by

1 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01248-BR Document 49 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 4
Health Net Health Plan of Oregon and the Motion (#42) to Dismiss

First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by American Specialty

Health Group. In their Motions Defendants contend this Court

must dismiss Claim Three in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class

Action Complaint (#38) because Claim Three fails to state a claim

on which relief can be granted and Plaintiffs lack standing to

obtain the declaratory relief sought. After a thorough review of

the pleadings, the Court concludes oral argument is not necessary

to resolve these Motions and, accordingly, STRIKES the oral

argument set for May 9, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The Court directs the

parties to be prepared at that time to conduct the scheduling

conference set for that day.

In Claim Three Plaintiffs Jeff Clark and Leigh Ann Chapman

(collectively referred to as the Provider Plaintiffs), two

licensed naturopathic physicians, seek a declaration that certain

terms in contracts between Health Net and American Specialty

violate 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-5 because those terms illegally

discriminate against naturopathic doctors and, therefore, are

void. The Provider Plaintiffs are only named in Claim Three. 

Although the Provider Plaintiffs contend the contracts between

Defendants violate § 300gg-5, which is part of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Provider Plaintiffs

concede they do not have a private right of action under ERISA

and instead contend Plaintiffs’ Claim Three arises pursuant to

2 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01248-BR Document 49 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 4
the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

It is well-settled, however, that the Declaratory Judgment

Act does not create a stand-alone cause of action. See Franchise

Tax Bd. Of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation trust for

S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 15 (1983)(“‘[T]he operation of the

Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural only.’”)(quoting Skelly

Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 70 S.Ct. 876, 94

L.Ed. 1194 (1950)). See also Graham v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Assn.,

No. 3:15-cv-0990-AC, 2015 WL 10322087, at *13 (D. Or. Dec. 2,

2015)(“The Declaratory Judgment Act . . . does not create a cause

of action; instead, it creates a remedy for existing causes of

action.”). The Provider Plaintiffs, nonetheless, contend they

have a cause of action as to Claim Three because they are thirdparty beneficiaries of the contract between Health Net and

American Specialty. Even if the Provider Plaintiffs could

establish they were third-party beneficiaries, however, such a

claim could only arise under ERISA, (which, as noted, Provider

Plaintiffs concede does not provide them with a cause of action)

or under some other unpled, state-law cause of action over which

this Court would not have jurisdiction.1 Accordingly, because

the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create a stand-alone cause

1

 There does not exist diversity between the parties, and,

in any event, the Court would not exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Claim Three because it is factually and legally

distinct from Claims One and Two, which are brought by Plaintiffs

who are not similarly situated.

3 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01248-BR Document 49 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 4
of action, the Court concludes Claim Three fails to state a

claim.

The Court previously dismissed a materially identical Claim

Three in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint (#1) for the same reason

and, by Order (#32) issued January 7, 2016, provided Plaintiffs

with an opportunity to re-plead for the purpose of specifically

identifying “the cause of action each of the service-provider

Plaintiffs rely on to justify the declaratory relief that they

seek.” Because Plaintiffs have failed to identify a viable cause

of action as to Claim Three after being provided with the

opportunity to amend their Complaint, the Court concludes any

further opportunity to amend would be futile.

Accordingly, on this record the Court GRANTS the Motion

(#41) to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Allegation Complaint

filed by Health Net Health Plan of Oregon and the Motion (#42) to

Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by American

Specialty Health Group and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Claim Three with

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

4 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01248-BR Document 49 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4