Beach v. United Behavioral Health ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 BARBARA BEACH, et al., 10 Case No. 21-cv-08612-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING STAY 12 UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 2022 WL 850647 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2022), Tomlinson v. 17 United Behavioral Health, No. 3:19-cv-6999-RS, and this action all involve challenges to the 18 clinical guidelines that United Behavioral Health used to determine medical necessity under its 19 benefit plans. In Wit, the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision that, if it stands, may foreclose all of 20 plaintiffs’ claims in Tomlinson and at least a substantial portion of plaintiffs’ claims here. Briefing 21 on the Wit plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc is underway at the Ninth Circuit. By a 22 stipulated order, a previously imposed stay of proceedings in Tomlinson has been extended 23 through the time a mandate issues in Wit. 24 Plaintiffs in all three actions are represented by the same counsel. Plaintiffs are unwilling 25 to stipulate to a stay here, however, because they contend this action includes an additional 26 claim—the so-called “bundling claim”—that they insist will not be affected by the ultimate result 27 in Wit, whatever that may turn out to be. Although plaintiffs have framed the bundling claim as a 1 it can survive independently even if the main class fails. 2 Whether or not that is correct, however, plaintiffs acknowledge factual issues and 3 discovery will overlap. From that, they conclude no stay of this action is warranted, even though 4 || they concede a stay would be appropriate absent the bundling subclass. The better approach, 5 though, is to stay the case notwithstanding the possibility that the Wit decision may have less 6 || direct effect on the bundling subclass. The potential import of the Wit decision on the viability of 7 at least a large part of this case is too great to ignore, and there is no undue prejudice to plaintiffs 8 from a limited stay. 9 Accordingly, the motion is granted, and this action is stayed pending the issuance of the 10 || mandate in Witt. In the event further proceedings in the Ninth Circuit become unduly protracted, 11 plaintiffs may move to lift the stay. 12 13 || ITISSO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: July 7, 2022 a 16 VA beh 5 RICHARD SEEBORG _ ief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . CASE No. 21-cv-08612-RS