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 stayed the case while Saloojas pursued Supreme Court review of a related Ninth Circuit decision.
Saloojas, Inc. and Blue Cross of California, Inc.; the case is paused while the Supreme Court petition is pending, and the pending motion to dismiss is not decided by this order.
What happened
Saloojas, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California, Inc. concerns a case affected by a related Ninth Circuit decision. The Ninth Circuit denied further review by its full membership.
Saloojas said it intended to ask the Supreme Court to review that decision. Blue Cross did not oppose continuing the stay. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or Blue Cross’s motion to dismiss.
Judge Jon S. Tigar stayed the case until the Supreme Court petition is resolved. Within 21 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision on the petition, the parties must submit a joint plan for how the case should proceed, which may include asking for a new hearing date on the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Saloojas, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-03269
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 15, 2023
Background
The Ninth Circuit had issued a decision in a related case, and then denied en banc review—review by the court’s full membership. Saloojas, Inc. indicated that it intended to petition the Supreme Court to review that decision. Blue Cross of California, Inc. did not oppose continuing the stay.
Ruling
The court ordered that this case be stayed pending the outcome of Saloojas’s petition for Supreme Court review. A stay pauses the case rather than resolving the parties’ claims. The order does not rule on Blue Cross’s pending motion to dismiss, identified as ECF No. 42.
Next Steps
Within 21 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision on the petition, the parties must submit a joint case-management statement proposing how to proceed. The statement may include a request for a new hearing date on Blue Cross’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.