Motion to Quash service of summons
three different conclusions in the alternative. (See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. Insomniac, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 803, 831.)
The demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.
Motion to Stike The motion of defendant Sagar Hotels, Inc., to strike portions of the complaint of plaintiffs Debbie Rodriguez, individually and as GAL for minor plaintiffs Melanie Pinto and Aiden Pinto, and Carlos Pintos is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part.
The motion is MOOT as to items 1 through 6 in the notice of motion, which seek to strike paragraphs 87 and 88, which are in the third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and paragraphs 102, 105, 106, 110, which are in the fifth cause of action for fraud based on concealment.
The motion is GRANTED as to items 7 and 8 in the notice of motion, which seek to strike paragraph 115 and the request for punitive damages in the prayer. (Essentially, items 7 and 8 are the same thing because paragraph 115 is the request for exemplary and punitive damages in the prayer.) Because the Court is sustaining the demurrer to the third and fifth causes of action, the remaining causes of action in the complaint, which are for negligence, nuisance, and breach of contract, do not support claims for punitive damages.
The court continues the 7/13/26 CMC to 10/12/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24. Defendant shall give notice.
211 Compass The hearing on the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Recovery, Inc. Wyoming’s Motion to Quash service of summons is vs. Blue Cross &
Blue Shield of CONTINUED to 10/19/26 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24, Wyoming to allow limited discovery as set forth herein.
Plaintiff Compass Recovery, Inc. (Compass) requests an opportunity to conduct limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. In the event such is allowed, BCBS also requests an opportunity to conduct targeted discovery relating to Compass’s efforts to contact potential patients in Wyoming. The Court may permit jurisdictional discovery in its discretion. (See Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, 487)
Although the Court will allow limited discovery, the scope of the requested categories proposed by the parties is overbroad. The discovery allowed will be limited to BCBS’s contacts with California as it relates to the 29 BCBS members who Compass alleges they treated. (See Opp. at 3:26-27 – “Compass ultimately treated approximately 29 BCBSWY members.”)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
This means that each category identified on page 10 of the Opposition shall include the above limitation. For example, category one shall be modified to read: “BCBSWY’s complete authorization and utilization- review files for the 29 BCBS members who Compass alleges they treated.” As a further example, Category nine shall be modified to read, “Communications with case managers, tribal representatives, courts, or other persons concerning placement of the 29 BCBS members who Compass alleges they treated at California facilities.”
The same limitations apply to the five categories of discovery listed on page 8 of the Reply. For example, category one shall be modified to read “All documents related to Compass’s employment or other contractual arrangements with Ronnie Arter, including all records of Mr. Arter travelling to Wyoming on behalf of Compass, relating to
contacting the 29 BCBS members who Compass alleges they treated.” As a further example, Category three shall be modified to read: “All documents reflecting travel arrangements made by Compass or its agents for the 29 BCBS members who Compass alleges they treated at California facilities to travel from Wyoming to California for treatment.”
The parties are to cooperate regarding scheduling and responding to discovery.
None of the discovery conducted by or against BCBS shall be construed in any way as submission to jurisdiction of this court, nor shall such be considered a waiver of any arguments challenging the service of summons.
The hearing on the motion is CONTINED to 10/19/26 at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. C24. Plaintiff is allowed to file a supplemental opposition not to exceed 7 pages, along with any supporting declaration, not later than 9/15/26. BCBS may file a supplemental reply not to exceed 7 pages, along with any supporting declaration, not later than 10/1/26.
The Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to 10/19/26 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24.
BCBS shall give notice.