Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2022

SALOOJAS, INC. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc.

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:22-cv-01696
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In SALOOJAS, INC. v. Aetna Health, Judge Corley ordered supplemental briefing on CARES Act enforcement in five related cases.

Who this affects

SALOOJAS, INC. and Aetna Health of California, Inc. in the five related cases; both parties were required to file supplemental briefs, and the scheduled hearing was vacated.

What happened

SALOOJAS, INC. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc. involves five related cases in which Aetna filed identical motions to dismiss.

The court said the parties had not adequately explained the administrative enforcement scheme, if any, provided by Section 3202 of the CARES Act. It ordered each side to file a supplemental brief of up to 10 pages by May 16, 2022, addressing that scheme and its effect on whether the statute creates a private right to sue. The court also vacated the May 5 hearing.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley did not decide the motions to dismiss in this order. She said the court would notify the parties if oral argument would be helpful after reviewing the supplemental briefs.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
SALOOJAS, INC. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-01696
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
May 2, 2022

Background

The court addressed identical motions to dismiss filed by Aetna Health of California, Inc. in five related cases: Nos. 22-cv-01696-JSC, 22-cv-01702-JSC, 22-cv-01703-JSC, 22-cv-01704-JSC, and 22-cv-01706-JSC. The opinion does not decide the motions.

Issue Identified by the Court

The parties' motions concerned whether Section 3202 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act provides a private right of action—that is, whether a person or entity may sue under the statute. The court explained that the statute's administrative enforcement scheme, if any, is relevant to that question. It found that the parties' briefs did not sufficiently explain that scheme or how it affects the analysis under the Supreme Court's private-right-of-action framework.

Order

The court ordered both SALOOJAS, INC. and Aetna Health of California, Inc. to submit supplemental briefs of no more than 10 pages by May 16, 2022. The parties must file an identical brief in each of the five related cases. The court vacated the May 5, 2022 hearing and said it would notify the parties if oral argument would be helpful after reviewing the briefs.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley therefore ordered supplemental briefing; she did not grant or deny the pending motions to dismiss in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.