This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Quantum Meruit

Stanford Health Care v. Trustmark Services Company, et al.

Published: Sep. 1, 2023 | Result Date: Apr. 24, 2023 | Filing Date: Jul. 5, 2022 |

Case number: 3:22-cv-03946-RS Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Richard Seeborg

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Melanie Joy Stephenson-Laws
(Stephenson, Aquisto & Colman Inc.)

Venetia Ida-Jane Byars
(Stephenson, Acquisto & Colman Inc. )

Richard A. Lovich
(Stephenson, Acquisto & Colman Inc.)

David F. Mastan
(Stephenson, Acquisto & Colman Inc. )

Karlene J. Rogers-Aberman
(Stephenson, Acquisto & Colman Inc.)


Defendant

Casey Z. Donoyan
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)

Gary S. Pancer
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)

Jeffrey C. Burt
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)

Ali R. Kazempour
(Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo)

Neil M. Katsuyama
(Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo)


Facts

Stanford Health Care is a nonprofit corporation that operates the Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto. Between January 2020 and June 2021, Stanford Health treated patients who were part of health insurance plans sponsored by The Chefs' Warehouse and administered by Trustmark Health Benefits. In May 2022, Stanford Health filed suit against Chefs' Warehouse and Trustmark in Santa Clara County, seeking to recover $513,760.25 for the underpayment of services provided to the beneficiaries of their health insurance plans. Trustmark later removed the case to federal court.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: First, plaintiff contended that defendants breached an implied-in-fact contract. According to plaintiff, plaintiff contacted defendant each time one of their beneficiaries would seek treatment, defendants verified each patient's membership in the health plan, and when the patients were discharged, plaintiff would submit the treatments' costs to defendants. Second, plaintiff argued that in providing medical services, defendants benefitted from plaintiff's treatment to their beneficiaries, and therefore, plaintiff raised a quantum meruit claim.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued, among others, that plaintiff failed to adequately plead facts evidencing the formation of an implied contract, let alone, breach. Moreover, defendants also contended that plaintiff's quantum meruit theory was unviable.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.


#141355

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390