§Why CasetextPricing

CENTINELA FREEMAN EMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES v. HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA

Respondents’ Petition for Review

32 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,023 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  2. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 754 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"

  3. Loeffler v. Target Corp.

    58 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an alleged overcollection of tax could not serve as a predicate for a California consumer protection claim when a business acted in conformity with governing taxing statutes

  4. Zhang v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.4th 364 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 233 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim," but that "when insurers engage in conduct that violates both [ section 790.03 ] and obligations imposed by other statutes or the common law, a UCL action may lie"

  5. Goodman v. Kennedy

    18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 606 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"

  6. Biakanja v. Irving

    49 Cal.2d 647 (Cal. 1958)   Cited 769 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decedent's intended beneficiary had a special relationship with the notary public who had prepared a defective will

  7. J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory

    24 Cal.3d 799 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 380 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding a "special relationship" to allow recovery of lost business and lost profits arising out of negligent performance of renovation services by a defendant not in privity with the plaintiff

  8. Gentry v. Ebay, Inc.

    99 Cal.App.4th 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 155 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that website is an interactive computer service

  9. California Medical Assn. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc.

    94 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 155 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "action for unjust enrichment does not lie where . . . express binding agreements exist and define the parties' rights"; characterizing claim based on unjust enrichment as "quasi-contract" claim

  10. Ochs v. PacifiCare of California

    115 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 99 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding such a cause of action exists

  11. Section 1395dd - Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor

    42 U.S.C. § 1395dd   Cited 1,369 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Providing for civil penalties of up to $50,000 for a physician who "signs a certification under subsection (c) ... if the physician knew or should have known that the benefits did not outweigh the risks"

  12. Section 1300.71 - Claims Settlement Practices

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 28 § 1300.71   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Addressing how to calculate the reasonable and customary value of the health care services provided

  13. Section 1300.76 - Plan Tangible Net Equity Requirement

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 28 § 1300.76   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), each plan licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Act shall, at all times, have and maintain a tangible net equity at least equal to the greater of: (1) $1 million; or (2) the sum of two percent (2%) of the first $150 million of annualized premium revenues plus one percent (1%) of annualized premium revenues in excess of $150 million; or (3) an amount equal to the sum of: (A) eight percent (8%) of the first $150 million of annualized health care expenditures

  14. Section 1300.75.4.2 - Organization Information

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 28 § 1300.75.4.2   Cited 3 times

    Every contract involving a risk arrangement between a plan and an organization shall require the organization or sub-delegating organization to do the following: (a) Maintain at all times a minimum "cash-to-claims ratio," as defined in section 1300.75.4(f), of 0.75 except as specified below. Beginning October 1, 2019 and ending on October 1, 2020, an organization shall comply with the cash-to-claims ratio definition, which is defined as an organization's cash, readily available marketable securities

  15. Section 1300.75.4.5 - Plan and Sub-Delegating Organization Compliance

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 28 § 1300.75.4.5   Cited 3 times

    (a) Every plan and sub-delegating organization that maintains a risk arrangement with an organization shall have adequate procedures in place to ensure: (1) That plan or sub-delegating organization personnel review all reports and financial information made available pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1375.4, these Solvency Regulations, and as provided under the terms of the contract with an organization as part of the plan's responsibility to evaluate and ensure the financial viability of

  16. Section 1300.75.4.8 - Corrective Action

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 28 § 1300.75.4.8   Cited 2 times

    Every contract involving a risk arrangement between a plan and an organization or a sub-delegating organization and an organization shall require the plan and the organization or the sub-delegating organization and the organization to comply with a process, set forth in this regulation and administered by the Department, for the development and implementation of Corrective Action Plans (CAPs). (a) Organizations reporting deficiencies in any of the Grading Criteria shall submit a self-initiated CAP

  17. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  18. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)

  19. Rule 8.29 - Service on nonparty public officer or agency

    Cal. R. 8.29   Cited 6 times

    (a)Proof of service When a statute or this rule requires a party to serve any document on a nonparty public officer or agency, the party must file proof of such service with the document unless a statute permits service after the document is filed, in which case the proof of service must be filed immediately after the document is served on the public officer or agency. (Subd (a) relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (b).) (b)Identification on cover When a statute or this rule requires