In 1975, the Legislature enacted the Knox-Keene Act, which provides the legal framework for the regulation of California’s individual and group health care [service] plans. Effective January 1, 2016, the Legislature enacted Health and Safety Code section 1367.27, which requires health care service plans to, among other things, maintain and update accurate provider directories (PDs). (Stats. 2015, Reg. Sess. 2014- 2015, ch. 649, § 2.)
The plaintiff, the People of the State of California, acting by and through Mara W. Elliott, the San Diego City Attorney, filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
Citing section 1367.27, the complaint alleged that health insurance companies are required to publish, maintain, and update accurate provider directories (PDs), setting forth information regarding a health plan’s providers (e.g., location, contact information, specialty, etc.). In particular, the People alleged that Kaiser failed to maintain and update accurate PDs for its health plans, as required by Health and Safety Code section 1367.27.
The complaint sought the following relief: (1) civil penalties pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17206, 17206.1, subdivision (a)(1), and 17536; (2) restitution; and (3) provisional and final remedies against Kaiser, including, without limitation, “an injunction prohibiting [Kaiser] from continuing [its] unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent activities, and discontinue [its] false and misleading advertising.”
Kaiser filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of its motion, Kaiser argued that there were no triable issues of material fact and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the trial court should abstain from adjudicating the action. It submitted a separate statement of undisputed material facts, along with various declarations and exhibits and a request for judicial notice, in support of its motion.
In their opposition papers, the People argued that the court should not abstain from adjudicating their action because, among other things, Kaiser’s violations of section 1367.27 and other statutes provide predicates for their UCL cause of action and the UCL contemplates co-enforcement by the People and administrative agencies. In reply, Kaiser reasserted its original arguments in support of its motion.
The trial court, after hearing arguments of counsel, issued a minute order granting Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment based solely on the exercise of its discretion to abstain from adjudicating the People’s action. The court entered a judgment in favor of Kaiser. The People timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgment.
The Attorney General for the State of California has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the People. The that the California Department of Managed Health Care has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of neither party, and the California Association of Health Plans has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Kaiser. The People and Kaiser have filed answers to the amicus curiae briefs.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the doctrine of judicial abstention. Accordingly, it reversed the judgment and remand the matter in the published case of People. ex rel. Elliott v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan -D081262 (October 2024)
Under the doctrine of judicial abstention, a trial court has discretion to abstain from adjudicating an action if: (1) ” ‘ “granting the requested relief would require a trial court to assume the functions of an administrative agency, or to interfere with the functions of an administrative agency” ‘ “; (2) the action ” ‘ “involves determining complex economic policy, which is best handled by the Legislature or an administrative agency” ‘ “; or (3) ” ‘ “granting injunctive relief would be unnecessarily burdensome for the trial court to monitor and enforce given the availability of more effective means of redress.” ‘ ” (Hambrick, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 147 – 148, quoting Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 496 (Arce); Blue Cross of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 138, 157 (Blue Cross).)
The Court of Appeal concluded that “[A]bstention is not appropriate where resolution of the issues involves solely the judicial function of resolving questions of law based on facts before the court.” (Hambrick, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 152.) In this case, the People’s complaint requests that the trial court simply apply section 1367.27’s clear requirements for PD accuracy to the facts alleged and proven at trial, which the People argue will show Kaiser’s violation of its statutory obligations regarding PD accuracy and thus the “unlawful” prong of their UCL cause of action. Therefore, their complaint merely requests that the trial court “perform an ordinary judicial function.” (Blue Cross, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 157.) Abstention is not appropriate in these circumstances. (Hambrick, at p. 152.)