Healthcare Ally Management of California, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

-- 1 of 3 --

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.

-- 2 of 3 --

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.

-- 3 of 3 --