DOE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, AS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al.

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., ARBITRATION AGREEMENT I understand that (except for Small Claims Court cases, claims subject to a Medicare appeals procedure or the ERISA claims procedure regulation, and any other claims that can’t be subject to binding arbitration under governing law) any dispute between myself, my heirs, relatives, or other associated parties on the one hand and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (KFHP), any contracted health care providers, administrators, or other associated parties on the other hand, for alleged violation of any duty arising out of or related to membership in KFHP, including any claim for medical or hospital malpractice (a claim that medical services were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently, or incompetently rendered), for premises liability, or relating to the coverage for, or delivery of, services or items, irrespective of legal theory, must be decided by binding arbitration under California and not by lawsuit or resort to court process, except as applicable law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings.

I agree to give up our right to a jury trial and accept the use of binding arbitration. I understand that the full arbitration provision is contained in the Evidence of Coverage.

(Id. at § 4.)

Kaiser also produced three other healthcare services agreements that contained virtually identical arbitration agreements. (See id. Ex. C (attaching the April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023 Kaiser Permanente for Small Business Combined Evidence of Coverage and Disclosure Form for DNJ Property Management); see also id. Ex. E (attaching the January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 Kaiser Permanente HSA-Qualified High Deductible Health Plan HMO Evidence of Coverage for Woodmont Real Estate Services); see also id. Ex. G (attaching the January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 Kaiser Permanente HSA-Qualified High Deductible Health Plan HMO Evidence of Coverage for Woodmont Real Estate Services).) But Kaiser did not produce Doe’s application concerning these healthcare services agreements.

Doe opposed. (Opp’n, May 15, 2026.) Doe first argued that Kaiser did not produce an arbitration agreement between Doe and Kaiser, instead it produced an arbitration agreement in connection with her employer-sponsored health plan. (Id. 4:5–5:25.) Doe next argued that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. (Id. 5:26–9:8.) Doe finally argued that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable under the U.S. Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. (Id. 9:9–10:9.)

II.

Legal Standard

A written agreement to arbitrate an existing or future controversy is valid unless grounds exist to rescind the contract. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118568: DOE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, AS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, as a nonprofit corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 362541700618 in Department 16

III.

Discussion

The Court grants Kaiser’s Motion as it has shown the existence of a valid arbitration agreement that covers Doe’s claims against Kaiser; and Doe did not show that the arbitration agreement is either unconscionable or that her claims are saved from arbitration under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

A. Arbitration Agreement The Court finds that Kaiser produced an arbitration agreement that covers Doe’s claims against Kaiser.

Doe is bound by the healthcare services agreements that her employers negotiated with Kaiser. (See Madden v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 699, 706 (holding that “an agent or representative, contracting for medical services on behalf of a group of employees,” has implied authority to do what is “proper and usual” to carry out their agency, including “agree[ing] to arbitration of malpractice claims of enrolled employees”).) The Court deems Doe’s failure to address Madden as conceding this issue.

In her opposition, Doe noted that “[she] is not merely arguing that Kaiser failed to comply with technical notice requirements under section 1363.1 [of the Health and Safety Code].” (Opp’n 10:16–17.) But Doe presented no argument on this issue. (See generally Opp’n.) The Court deems Doe’s failure to brief whether Kaiser’s disclosure complied with section 1363.1 as conceding that the disclosure was adequate.

Lastly, Doe did not contest that her claims fell within the arbitration agreement.

B. Doe’s Defenses to Enforcement Having found that an arbitration agreement exists that covers Doe’s claims, the Court next turns to whether there are grounds to rescind the agreement.

1. Unconscionability The Court finds that the arbitration agreement is not unconscionable.

A party may resist arbitration by showing that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. (Ramirez v. Charter Comms., Inc. (2024) 16 Cal. 5th 478, 492.) “A contract is unconscionable if one of the parties lacked a meaningful choice in deciding whether to agree and the contract contains terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111, 125.) “Unconscionability has both a procedural and a substantive element.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118568: DOE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, AS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, as a nonprofit corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 362541700618 in Department 16 (Ramirez, 16 Cal. 5th at 492.) “Both procedural and substantive elements must be present to conclude a term is unconscionable, but these required elements need not be present to the same degree.” (Id. at 493.)

Here, Doe did not show how the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable.1 Doe argued that “[t]he arbitration scheme here is substantively unconscionable because it forces Plaintiff to arbitrate highly sensitive privacy and emotional distress claims involving humiliating disclosures of sexually sensitive medical information in a confidential arbitral forum that disproportionately benefits institutional healthcare defendants.” (Opp’n 8:26–9:1.) Doe added: “Confidential proceedings disproportionately favor repeat-player institutional defendants such as Kaiser while suppressing public accountability for systemic privacy violations involving patient records.” (Id. 9:2–4.)

Missing from her discussion, however, is some argument or evidence showing how the agreement’s terms are unfair or one-sided. (See Ramirez, 16 Cal. 5th at 493 (“Substantive unconscionability looks beyond the circumstances of contract formation and considers ‘the fairness of an agreement's actual terms,’ focusing on whether the contract will create unfair or one-sided results.”).) (quoting Pinnacle, 55 Cal. 4th at 246).) Doe’s general observations, by themselves, do not satisfy this prong.

2. Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act Under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, a predispute arbitration agreement is invalid or unenforceable “with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to . . . sexual harassment dispute.” (9 U.S.C. § 402(a).) A “sexual harassment dispute” means “a dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.” (§ 401(4).)

Here, Doe did not show how this is a “sexual harassment dispute.” Instead, her claims against Kaiser arise from improper disclosure of her private medical information to Doe’s boyfriend. Accordingly, this is not a “sexual harassment dispute.” (See, e.g. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 51.9(a)(2) (listing one element of cause of action for sexual harassment as showing: “The defendant has made sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests, demands for sexual compliance by the plaintiff, or engaged in other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature or of a hostile nature based on gender, that were unwelcome and pervasive or severe.”); see also Cal.

Code Regs. § 11034(f)(1) (defining “sexual harassment” as including “verbal, physical, and visual harassment, as well as unwanted sexual advances”).) Doe did not allege any facts showing that sex-based harassment. (See Compl. ¶ 22 (alleging that the disclosure was made because Janine Roe wanted Richard Roe to stop dating Doe).)

IV. Orders The Motion is granted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118568: DOE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, AS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, as a nonprofit corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 362541700618 in Department 16 The Court denies the request for judicial notice of the legislative history of 9 U.S.C. § 401 as moot.

The parties’ dispute is referred to arbitration.

The Court stays the action as to Kaiser pending completion of arbitration.

The Court vacates the hearings on Doe’s motions to compel further responses from Kaiser, set for hearings on December 10 and 15, 2026.

The Court sets a conference for January 5, 2027, at 2:30 p.m. to take status on the arbitration proceedings. 1 The Court assumed for the sake of this discussion that Doe established some degree of

procedural unconscionability.

***

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., as a nonprofit corporation, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, as a nonprofit corporation on 11/12/2025 is Granted.

The case is ordered stayed pending binding arbitration as to Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, as a nonprofit corporation (Defendant) and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., as a nonprofit corporation (Defendant).

Case Management Conference re Arbitration is scheduled for 01/05/2027 at 2:30 PM in Department 16 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by JANE DOE (Plaintiff) CRS# 092756486108 scheduled for 12/10/2026, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by JANE DOE (Plaintiff) CRS# 821467105027 scheduled for 12/15/2026, and the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by JANE DOE (Plaintiff) CRS# 971610665175 scheduled for 12/15/2026 are vacated.

Dao Vang (Attorney) representing Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., as a nonprofit corporation (Defendant)+ must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118568: DOE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, AS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, as a nonprofit corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 362541700618 in Department 16

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017