Saloojas, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-03269
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Saloojas v. Blue Cross, Judge Tigar ordered briefs on why the case should not be stayed pending a related Ninth Circuit appeal.
Saloojas, Inc. and Blue Cross of California, Inc.; the order required both parties to address whether the case should be stayed and stated that the case would be stayed if neither filed a responsive brief.
What happened
Saloojas, Inc. sued Blue Cross of California, Inc., and Blue Cross’s motion to dismiss was pending. The order does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
A consolidated appeal involving Saloojas, Inc. and Aetna Health of California, Inc. was pending before the Ninth Circuit. The court said the cases in that appeal involved allegations and claims virtually identical to those in this case, and that the appeal’s outcome would affect the motion to dismiss.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the parties to explain why the case should not be stayed while the Ninth Circuit appeal was decided. The parties could file simultaneous briefs of no more than four pages by April 28, 2023; if neither party filed a brief, the court said it would stay the case.
The detailed version
- Saloojas, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-03269
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Blue Cross of California, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, identified as ECF No. 42, was pending. The opinion does not provide the specific grounds for that motion or describe Saloojas, Inc.’s underlying claims in detail.
A consolidated appeal was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a related proceeding involving Saloojas, Inc. and Aetna Health of California, Inc. The court stated that each underlying case in that appeal concerned allegations and claims by Saloojas that were virtually identical to those in this case.
Order
The court stated that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the consolidated appeal would necessarily affect how it resolved Blue Cross’s motion to dismiss. It therefore ordered the parties to show cause—meaning to explain—why this case should not be stayed while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending.
The parties were invited to file simultaneous briefs of no more than four pages by April 28, 2023, addressing whether a stay was appropriate. The court stated that it would stay the case if neither party filed a responsive brief. The order did not itself state that the case was stayed, and it did not rule on the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.