Filed 4/28/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT CALIFORNIA MEDICAL B304217 ASSOCIATION, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. BC487412) v. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA INC., Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Whatley Kallas, Alan M. Mansfield, Edith M. Kallas and Deborah J. Winegard for Plaintiff and Appellant. Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, Matthew Umhofer, Elizabeth Mitchell; Williams & Connolly, Enu Mainigi, Craig Singer, Grant Geyerman and Benjamin Hazelwood for Defendant and Respondent. ********** Defendant and respondent Aetna Healthcare of California, Inc. (Aetna), doing business as Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. and Aetna Health of California, Inc., provides health insurance to its subscribers through a network of physicians who are contracted to provide services for discounted rates. Subscribers may receive services from these in-network physicians, or from out-of-network physicians at a higher share of the cost. Aetna implemented a policy to restrict or eliminate patient referrals by its in-network physicians to out-of-network physicians. Plaintiff and appellant California Medical Association (CMA) and others sued Aetna, seeking among other claims, an injunction for alleged violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200). The trial court granted Aetna’s motion for summary judgment, finding CMA lacked standing under the UCL because it was not directly injured by Aetna’s policy. California courts have permitted associations like CMA to bring a nonclass representative action on behalf of their members and others under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 where such an action is justified by considerations of necessity, convenience, and justice. (See, e.g., Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co. (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 783, 793–796, and cases cited therein.) None of the cases recognizing representational standing under section 382 involve UCL claims. The law recognizing an association’s standing to bring a nonclass representative action developed many years before the electorate passed Proposition 64 in 2004, which changed the requirements for standing to bring a UCL claim. Proposition 64 amended the UCL to limit standing to bring a private enforcement action only to one “ ‘who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.’ ” (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL- 2 CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1000 (Amalgamated Transit); see also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) This appeal presents two issues. First, we must decide if the body of law permitting an association to bring a nonclass representative action bestows standing upon CMA to seek an injunction against Aetna under the UCL, whether or not CMA individually suffered injury in fact and lost money or property. We find the answer to that question is “no.” Next, we must decide whether CMA’s evidence that it diverted substantial resources to assist its physician members who were injured by Aetna’s policy created a material disputed fact as to whether CMA itself suffered injury …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals