Opinion
H048486
12-08-2023
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent, DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO et al., Real Parties in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 19CV349757)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Grover, Acting P. J.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)
Petitioner County of Santa Clara operates a health care service plan, licensed under the Knox-Keene Health Service Plan Act of 1975 (Health &Saf. Code, § 1340 et seq.). Real parties in interest Doctors Medical Center of Modesto and Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. (collectively, the Hospitals) provided emergency medical services to members of the county's health plan and submitted reimbursement claims to the county. The county reimbursed the Hospitals for only part of the claimed amounts. The Hospitals sued the county to recover the full amounts of their claims. The operative complaint alleged a single cause of action for breach of an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract. The county demurred, asserting it is immune from the Hospitals' suit under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.).
After respondent court overruled the demurrer, the county petitioned for writ relief here. We filed an opinion concluding that the county was immune from suit, and the Supreme Court granted review of our decision. In County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1034, the Supreme Court concluded that the "immunity provisions of the Government Claims Act are directed toward tort claims; they do not foreclose liability based on contract or the right to obtain relief other than money or damages." (Id. at p. 1038.) Because the Hospitals "alleged an implied-in-law contract claim based on the reimbursement provision of the Knox-Keene Act, and seek only to compel the County to comply with its statutory duty," the court concluded that the county is not immune from suit under the Government Claims Act. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court reversed this court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. No party filed a brief in this court after remand. As the Supreme Court's decision resolves against the county the sole issue raised, we will deny the county's petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of mandate is denied. Costs in this original proceeding are awarded to the real parties in interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493(a)(2).) Upon issuance of the remittitur, the temporary stay order is vacated.
WE CONCUR: LIE, J., WILSON, J.