throbber
Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM P. DONOVAN, JR (SBN 155881)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`wdonovan@mwe.com
`2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
`Telephone:
`+1 310 277 4110
`Facsimile:
`+1 310 277 4730
`
`JOSHUA B. SIMON (admitted pro hac vice)
`WARREN HASKEL (admitted pro hac vice)
`DMITRIY TISHYEVICH (SBN 275766)
`CAROLINE INCLEDON (admitted pro hac vice)
`CHELSEA COSILLOS (admitted pro hac vice)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`jsimon@mwe.com
`whaskel@mwe.com
`dtishyevich@mwe.com
`cincledon@mwe.com
`ccosillos@mwe.com
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone:
`+1 212 547 5400
`Facsimile:
`+1 212 547 5444
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
`COMPANY
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`RJ, as the representative of her beneficiary son
`
`
`SJ; LW as the representative of her
`
`beneficiary spouse MW; and, DS, an
`Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD
`individual, on behalf of themselves and all
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
`others similarly situated,
`COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`Plaintiffs,
`PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT
`UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`
`
`Date: August 12, 2021
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 4 – 5th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`
`vs.
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
`COMPANY, and MULTIPLAN, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`1.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................................2
`I.
`Plaintiffs’ RICO § 1962(c) Claim Fails (Count I). ....................................................................2
`A.
`Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged Cigna Engaged in RICO
`Predicate Acts. ...................................................................................................2
`Plaintiffs Do Not Adequately Plead Mail or Wire Fraud. .................................2
`a)
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Reliance. ............................................................2
`b)
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Cigna Had Specific Intent to
`Defraud. .................................................................................................5
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Federal Health Care Offenses or Money
`Laundering as a Predicate Act. ..........................................................................5
`Plaintiffs Have Not Pled A Rico Enterprise or That Cigna
`Conducted Its Affairs. ........................................................................................8
`Plaintiffs LW and DS Have Not Alleged a RICO Injury. ..................................9
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ RICO Conspiracy Claim Fails (Count II) ...............................................................10
`Plaintiff LW’s Claims Should Be Dismissed Because Her Plan Contains a Binding Forum
`Selection Clause .......................................................................................................................11
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................14
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`ii
`
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`ABC Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Health Net of Cal., Inc.,
`2020 WL 2121372 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2020) .............................................................................3
`
`Agric. Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp.,
`235 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2017)......................................................................................6
`
`Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District Of
`Texas,
`571 U.S. 49 (2013) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`In re Becker,
`993 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Brummett v. Cty. of San Diego,
`2013 WL 1285144 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) ...........................................................................9
`
`Cedars Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Mid-W. Nat'l Life Ins. Co.,
`118 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (C.D. Cal. 2000) .....................................................................................3
`
`CIGNA Corp. v. Amara,
`563 U.S. 421 (2011) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Coleman v. Supervalu, Inc. Short Term Disability Program,
`920 F. Supp. 2d 901 (N.D. Ill. 2013) .......................................................................................13
`
`DeSoto v. Condon,
`2008 WL 11338151 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2008) ............................................................................6
`
`Desoto v. Condon,
`371 F. App’x 822 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................1, 5, 6
`
`Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.,
`751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Gomez v. Guthy-Renker, LLC,
`2015 WL 4270042 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2015) ........................................................................8, 9
`
`Grant v. County of Erie,
`542 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................10
`
`Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N.A., Inc.,
`485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................14
`
`iii
`
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`Howard v. Am. Online Inc.,
`208 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Kyko Global, Inc. v. Prithvi Information Solutions, Ltd.,
`2020 WL 3654951 (W.D. Pa. July 6, 2020) ..............................................................................6
`
`Laurel Vill. Bakery LLC v. Glob. Payments Direct Inc.,
`2006 WL 2792431 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2006) ........................................................................14
`
`LD v. United Behavioral Health, Inc.,
`508 F. Supp. 3d 583 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................1, 4
`
`Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc.,
`858 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Marin v. Xerox Corp.,
`935 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .....................................................................................13
`
`Martinez v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp.,
`2009 WL 586725 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009)............................................................................10
`
`Metaxas v. Lee,
`2020 WL 7025095 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) ..........................................................................7
`
`Nicolas v. MCI Health & Welfare Plan No. 501,
`453 F. Supp. 2d 972 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .....................................................................................13
`
`Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,
`486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-operative Ass’n,
`965 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by
`Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................10
`
`Pac. Bay Recovery, Inc. v. Cal. Physicians’ Servs., Inc.,
`12 Cal. App. 5th 200 (2017) ......................................................................................................3
`
`Prichard v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,
`783 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................12
`
`Rapp v. Henkel of Am., Inc.,
`2018 WL 6307904 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018) ............................................................................13
`
`RJ, et al. v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1110261 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021) .......................................................................5, 8
`
`Rodriguez v. McKinney,
`878 F. Supp. 744 (E.D. Pa. 1995) ............................................................................................10
`
`iv
`
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`Rodriguez v. PepsiCo Long Term Disability Plan,
`716 F. Supp. 2d 855 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .....................................................................................13
`
`Sarmiento v. BMG Ent.,
`326 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ...................................................................................13
`
`Stewart v. Wachowski,
`2004 WL 2980783 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2004) ..........................................................................6
`
`Stitt v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2015 WL 75237 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015) ..................................................................................9
`
`TML Recovery, LLC v. Humana Inc.,
`2019 WL 3208807 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) .............................................................................3
`
`U.S. Med. Instruments, Inc. v. CFS N.A., Inc.,
`2013 WL 6055387 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2013) .........................................................................10
`
`United States v. Caldwell,
`560 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................7
`
`United States v. Esterman,
`324 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Verifone, Inc. v. A CAB, LLC,
`2016 WL 4480686 (D. Nev. Aug. 24, 2016) ...........................................................................11
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Wallace v. Int’l Paper Co.,
`2020 WL 4938361 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2020) ............................................................................13
`
`Yamauchi v. Cotterman,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 993 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .........................................................................................7
`
`Statutes
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) .........................................................................................................................8
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .......................................................................................................................11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rule 9(b) ................................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................................................7, 11, 12
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Cigna respectfully submits this reply memorandum in further support of its partial motion to
`dismiss the FAC (Dkt. No. 63).1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Cigna’s Motion described many of the pleading defects that remain in Plaintiffs’ amended
`RICO claims. Instead of engaging with Cigna’s Motion on the merits, Plaintiffs use most of their brief
`to provide dissertations on unrelated points of law and to block quote Judge Gonzalez-Rogers’
`decision in LD v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 3d 583 (N.D. Cal. 2020) for rationales
`that do not address the problems that Cigna pointed out in Plaintiffs’ FAC.
`For example, Cigna explained in its Motion that Plaintiffs’ mail and wire-based RICO claims
`fail because they have not alleged anyone relied on any false statements. In response, Plaintiffs cite
`to the portions of LD explaining that first-party reliance is not required for mail and wire fraud. Cigna
`never said it was. Instead, the problem that Cigna flagged with Plaintiffs’ mail and wire fraud claims
`is that they have not pled anyone reasonably relied on Cigna’s allegedly false statements. Plaintiffs
`cannot point to any contrary finding in LD because that opinion did not address this defect.
`Plaintiffs’ other tactic is to misstate the law. For example, among its many failings, Plaintiffs’
`federal health care offense theory fails because Plaintiffs do not plead the predicate act of money
`laundering with Rule 9(b) particularity. Because Plaintiffs cannot claim that they satisfied Rule 9(b),
`they instead argue that Cigna “misreads” the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Desoto v. Condon, 371 F.
`App’x 822 (9th Cir. 2010), representing to the Court that the “only predicate acts alleged [in Desoto]
`involved mail and wire fraud,” not money laundering as Cigna’s brief said. (Opp’n at 7.) Compare
`that to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion on page 824:
`
`Likewise, the district court properly concluded Desoto’s second amended
`complaint (SAC) fails to plead the RICO predicate acts with sufficient
`specificity to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). . . . The money
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all capitalized terms have the meaning provided them in Cigna’s partial
`motion to dismiss the FAC (“Mot.” or “Br.”) (Dkt. 76), all emphasis has been added, and all internal
`citations and quotations have been omitted.
`
`- 1 -
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`laundering allegations fail to allege whether Condon had the requisite
`intent to launder funds in furtherance of a RICO scheme.
`Plaintiffs’ misstatements of law on forum selection clauses are just as egregious. As Cigna
`explained, Plaintiff LW’s plan has a forum selection clause that requires her to pursue her claims in
`the Western District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs argue that this forum selection clause is unenforceable
`because it is against public policy and that LW’s claims are not “in connection with” her plan because
`the plan is not a defendant. But the Ninth Circuit says the opposite: the court affirmed just a few
`months ago that forum selection clauses are enforceable in ERISA plans, and it has found for decades
`now that non-parties can invoke these types of clauses.
`These are only examples. As described below, Plaintiffs do not bother to address most points
`Cigna raised in its Motion, and when they do respond, Plaintiffs offer incorrect readings of the law,
`strawman arguments, and unrelated allegations. Plaintiffs’ RICO claims and LW’s claims should be
`dismissed.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`PLAINTIFFS’ RICO § 1962(C) CLAIM FAILS (COUNT I).
`Cigna’s opening brief laid out several reasons why Plaintiffs have still failed to state a RICO
`claim. (Br. at 7-17.) Because none of Plaintiffs’ responses address these pleading defects, their RICO
`claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
`PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT PLAUSIBLY ALLEGED CIGNA ENGAGED IN
`A.
`RICO PREDICATE ACTS.
`Plaintiffs Do Not Adequately Plead Mail or Wire Fraud.
`1.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Reliance.
`a)
`As Cigna explained in its opening brief, Plaintiffs have not pled predicate acts of mail and wire
`fraud because Plaintiffs fail to plead that anyone reasonably relied on Cigna’s alleged misstatements.
`To do so, Plaintiffs would have to allege that Cigna made false statements before Plaintiffs received
`service (Br. at 9 (citing LD, 508 F. Supp. 3d 583, at 604)), and that someone reasonably relied on those
`pre-service statements. (Br. at 10-13.) But the only pre-service communications that Plaintiffs point
`
`- 2 -
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`to are VOB calls (id. at 9), and the law is clear that neither they (nor their providers) can reasonably
`rely on VOB calls as a promise of any particular rate of payment. (Id. at 10 (collecting cases).)
`Plaintiffs do not contest any of this. Instead, they try to sidestep the issue by arguing that LD
`considered the issue of reliance and found the plaintiffs’ allegations there sufficient. (Opp’n at 5
`(citing LD, 508 F. Supp. 3d 583, at 600-601); see also Opp’n at 6 (citing LD v. United Behavioral
`Health, 2020 930624, at *5 n.7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021)).) But Plaintiffs’ block-quotes from LD
`address only the uncontroversial principle that first-party reliance is not required in order to plead mail
`or wire fraud. Cigna does not dispute this fact. But the LD did not consider the issue raised in Cigna’s
`dismissal motion: that no one in the chain of causation—whether that be Plaintiffs or their provider,
`Summit Estate—could have reasonably relied on VOB calls because it is settled California law that
`VOB calls are not considered sufficiently specific promises to pay. See Cedars Sinai Med. Ctr. v.
`Mid-W. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1008 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (“[W]ithin the medical
`insurance industry, an insurer’s verification is not the same as a promise to pay”), see also, e.g., ABC
`Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., 2020 WL 2121372, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2020)
`(allegations regarding VOB calls inadequate to support a promissory estoppel claim); Pac. Bay
`Recovery, Inc. v. Cal. Physicians’ Servs., Inc., 12 Cal. App. 5th 200, 216 (2017) (allegations about
`VOB calls inadequate to support contract and estoppel claims); TML Recovery, LLC v. Humana Inc.,
`2019 WL 3208807, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) (allegations regarding VOB calls inadequate to
`support implied contract and oral contract claims).
`The same rationale requires dismissal here. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they have not alleged
`that (1) Cigna authorized a certain amount of treatment or agreed to pay a specific rate; (2) the VOB
`calls that occurred specifically addressed IOP treatment; or (3) Cigna indicated that it would use FAIR
`Health—or any specific charge database—to determine reimbursement.2 (Br. at 10-11.) Instead,
`Plaintiffs argue that their allegations are enough because they are the same ones offered by the
`
`2 Plaintiffs’ theory about why Cigna should pay FAIR Health has shifted since they first filed this
`action: while Plaintiffs first contended that Cigna was obligated to use FAIR Health to determine MRC
`(see Dkt. 32 ¶ 19), they now admit that their plans require no such thing. (Opp’n at 2.)
`
`- 3 -
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`plaintiffs in LD. That is not true. In LD, the plaintiffs alleged that the insurer, United Behavioral
`Health, represented on the VOB calls that it would “pay 100% of UCR rates” (Br. at 12 (citing Am.
`Compl. (Dkt. 74) at ¶¶ 259, 295, 326, 355, 382, LD, et al. vs. United Behavioral Health, et al., Case
`4:20-cv-02254-YGR).) The FAC does not allege Cigna made any similar statement for either MW or
`DS; the FAC merely alleges that Cigna representatives verified that MW and DS “had active benefits
`for out of network behavioral health treatment and . . . that the plan was an MRC 2 policy which would
`pay [a percentage] of the Medicare schedule rate for all services.” (Br. at 12 (citing FAC ¶¶ 310,
`340).) Again, Plaintiffs do not attempt to explain how such statements would be fraudulent.
`Even for RJ, Plaintiffs do not allege Cigna promised to pay any particular amount or mentioned
`FAIR Health. (See FAC ¶ 278 (alleging that a Cigna representative “represented that the plan would
`pay 80th percentile of a rate based on UCR”).) Even if they had, it would not have been sufficient.
`First, at best Plaintiffs would still have pled only one predicate act, not two to establish a
`pattern. (Br. at 11-13.) While Plaintiffs conclusorily argue that they “have identified the predicate
`acts of racketeering activity,” the allegations they cite to include post-service communications. (Id. at
`6.) But as the LD court found—and Plaintiffs do not dispute—post-service communications cannot
`support reliance. See LD, 508 F. Supp. 3d at 604 (“only the VOB calls . . . took place before plaintiffs
`received the IOP services at issue. Accordingly, only these communications could satisfy the reliance
`requirement for a RICO claim predicated on mail or wire fraud.”) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs
`also do not point to alleged facts about how anyone relied on these post-service communications or,
`with respect to payments, any Rule 9(b) time and place details (Br. at 12-13), so even if post-service
`communications were relevant—and they are not—these communications still could not serve as
`predicate acts.
`Second, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the FAC alleges that Summit made the VOB calls for
`each named Plaintiff before providing all treatment, including residential treatment. (Br. at 11.)
`Plaintiffs do not contend that Summit specifically raised IOP treatment on VOB calls, and they do
`allege that Cigna paid UCR for Summit’s residential treatment. (FAC ¶¶ 278, 292, 310, 323, 340,
`353.) Thus, Plaintiffs cannot claim there was anything false about this alleged statement.
`
`- 4 -
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Cigna Had Specific Intent to Defraud.
`b)
`Plaintiffs also offer no response to Cigna’s second basis for dismissing Plaintiffs’ mail and
`wire fraud claims: that Plaintiffs have failed to allege specific intent to defraud. (Br. at 13-14.)
`Specifically, Plaintiffs do not deny that many of the communications referenced in the FAC actually
`disclose that Viant would price the claims, nor do they deny that all VOB calls were made before the
`named Plaintiffs were admitted to their residential treatment. That means that Cigna could not have
`been aware of what actual services would be at issue, so Cigna could not have specifically intended to
`defraud Plaintiffs or Summit about how it would pay for Summit’s later-in-time IOP services.3 Given
`these allegations, it is not possible for Plaintiffs to plead that Cigna “acted with the requisite intent to
`deceive and cheat.” See RJ, et al. v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc., 2021 WL 1110261, at *10 (N.D.
`Cal. Mar. 23, 2021) (dismissing initial RICO claims on this basis).
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Federal Health Care Offenses or Money
`2.
`Laundering as a Predicate Act.
`In its opening brief, Cigna explained that Plaintiffs’ federal health care offenses theory fails
`because Plaintiffs have not plead – as they must – that Cigna laundered the proceeds of federal health
`care offenses with Rule 9(b) particularity. (See Br. at 14.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that they do not
`meet Rule 9(b)’s standards and instead try to avoid Rule 9(b) all together, contending that Cigna has
`misread the Ninth Circuit’s decision in DeSoto v. Condon, 371 F. App’x 822 (9th Cir. 2010), which
`Plaintiffs represent did not involve any allegations of money laundering. (Opp’n at 7 (stating that in
`DeSoto, the “only predicate acts alleged involved mail and wire fraud”).)
`That is not true. See DeSoto, 371 F. App’x at 824 (affirming that the predicate acts alleged in
`the complaint—mail fraud, wire fraud, and “money laundering”—are subject to Rule 9(b)); see also
`
`3 See, e.g., FAC ¶ 287 (EOB disclosing that “WE REDUCED THE ALLOWED AMOUNT BASED
`ON VIANT’S FACILITY BILL REVIEW PROGRAM. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
`THIS DISCOUNT[] CONTACT VIANT AT 866.233.0121”); id. ¶ 359 (alleging that “each patient”
`received an OON letter disclosing that “Cigna has contracted with Viant to negotiate on your behalf”);
`id. ¶¶ 278, 310, 340.
`
`- 5 -
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DeSoto v. Condon, 2008 WL 11338151, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2008) (“allegations of money
`laundering must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s requirements because money laundering involves an element of
`fraud”). Nor is DeSoto an outlier, as “[m]ost courts have held that allegations of money laundering
`must also satisfy Rule 9(b)’s requirements, since money laundering involves an element of fraud.”
`Stewart v. Wachowski, 2004 WL 2980783, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2004) (collecting cases).
`Plaintiffs’ citation to a single, out-of-Circuit unpublished case, Kyko Global, Inc. v. Prithvi
`Information Solutions, Ltd., 2020 WL 3654951 (W.D. Pa. July 6, 2020), finding otherwise does not
`stand up against the weight of these cases.
`But even if Rule 9(b) did not apply to money laundering claims in every instance, it would to
`the money laundering allegations here. As Plaintiffs admit, “fraud-based RICO claims… are required
`to be pled with particularity subject to Rule 9(b).” (Opp’n at 8); see also Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
`USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103-1104 (9th Cir. 2003) (claims that “sound in fraud” must satisfy Rule 9(b)).4
`Here, the Plaintiffs’ claims clearly sound in fraud because without Cigna’s alleged “scheme to
`fraudulently underpay” claims, there could have been no allegedly unlawful proceeds to launder or
`use in financial transactions. (FAC ¶ 126.)
`Just as fatal to Plaintiffs’ money laundering claims, Plaintiffs also offer no response to their
`failure to plead the other elements of money laundering, whether subject to Rule 9(b) or not. (Br. at
`14-15.) This includes failing to plead that Cigna attempted to either promote the allegedly illegal
`activity or to disguise the nature or source of any funds. See Metaxas v. Lee, 2020 WL 7025095, at
`*10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) (“[W]here a defendant takes no steps to disguise or conceal the source
`or destination of [allegedly laundered] funds . . . the transactions conspicuously lack the convoluted
`character associated with money laundering.”).
`
`4 This finding is consistent with the two cases cited by Plaintiffs: Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d
`541, 553 (9th Cir. 2007), and Comm. to Protect our Agric. Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp., 235
`F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1172 (E.D. Cal. 2017). Neither case states that only mail and wire fraud must be
`pled with particularity, nor does either one involve allegations of money laundering or federal health
`care offenses or the pleading standard that should apply to them.
`
`- 6 -
`
`CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO: 5:20-CV-02255
`
`
`
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`NEW YORK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02255-EJD Document 89 Filed 07/21/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In their opposition, Plaintiffs try to fill this gap by pointing to their allegations that Cigna
`“underpaid” them for the claims at issue and profited from these underpayments. (Opp’n at 8 (citing,
`in part, FAC ¶¶ 13, 93, 286, 319, 349, 381, 395).) But earning—and even depositing—money from
`an alleged fraud does not constitute money laundering. See, e.g., United States v. Esterman, 324 F.3d
`565, 570 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e have stressed that the mere transfer and spending of funds is not
`enough to sweep conduct within the money laundering statute; instead, subsequent transactions must
`be specifically designed to hide the provenance of the funds involved.”); United States v.
`Caldwell, 560 F.3d 1214, 1222 (10th Cir. 2009) (“Money laundering requires more than simply
`writing a check with the proceeds of unlawful activity. We have repeatedly stated that § 1956 is not
`a money spending statute.”).
`Similarly lacking from Plaintiffs’ brief is any explanation about how Cigna could have
`laundered money from self-funded plans, since under their self-funded Plans, Plaintiffs’ employers
`(not Cigna) are responsible for paying Plaintiffs’ claims. As Cigna explained in its opening brief,
`Plaintiffs cannot. (Br. at 15.)
`Finally, Plaintiffs try to avoid the pleading defects in their money laundering allegations by
`arguing that they have pled a federal health care offense. (Opp’n at 9-10.) However, Plaintiffs’
`allegations in support of this contention (namely, that that Cigna has violated 18 U.S.C. § 1035, § 664,
`§ 1347, § 1027, § 1349, § 1341, and § 1343) are found nowhere in the FAC, and Plaintiffs may not
`now amend their FAC through briefing. See Yamauchi v. Cotterman, 84 F. Supp. 3d 993, 1009 (N.D.
`Cal. 2015) (“In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond
`the complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers, such as a memorandum in opposition to a defendant’s
`motion to dismiss.”) (quoting Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in
`original)). In any event, Plaintiffs’ attempts to plead a federal health care offense do not help

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket