Perry v. Blue Shield of Cal. CA2/4

Filed 5/23/24 Perry v. Blue Shield of Cal. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

DYLAN SCOTT PERRY, B332384

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV27904) v.

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teresa A. Beaudet, Judge. Affirmed. Dylan Scott Perry, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Foley & Lardner, Kimberly A. Klinsport and Jason Y. Wu, for Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant and plaintiff Dylan Scott Perry filed a complaint alleging that “Blue Shield of California” cancelled his health insurance policy without notice. Respondent and defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California demurred to the amended complaint. After sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal. Appellant contends the trial court erred in “placing sanctions” on him because he “never sued, nor served [respondent] with a complaint.” He argues that he “sued and served” a different entity, “Blue Shield of California Health and Life Insurance Company.” We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following material allegations are taken from the initial complaint. Appellant signed up for healthcare coverage and received receipts of payment, welcome letters, and an insurance card from “Blue Shield of California.” Without notice, the policy was cancelled, and appellant learned he was uninsured when he sought medical treatment. Appellant did not want money, but only to “enforce the law that states: ‘an insurance company must give a policyholder written notice of cancellation at least 30 days before cancelling the policy.[’]” Appellant did not attach a copy of the policy to the complaint, plead contractual terms that were violated, identify the quoted law, or describe a theory of recovery. He did not attempt to plead the elements of any cause of action. The complaint did not mention an entity named “Blue Shield of California Health and Life Insurance Company,” either in the caption or body of the pleading. Respondent demurred to the complaint on the grounds of uncertainty, failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause