Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Blue Shield of California
- Donna Ryu
- 4:23-cv-05534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Blue Cross v. Blue Shield, Judge Ryu denied permission to serve by publication without prejudice but extended the service deadline.
The order affected the plaintiffs’ efforts to serve Blue Shield of California and Lorene Hackett, extending the service deadline through March 20, 2024, and continuing the initial case-management conference to May 15, 2024.
What happened
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Blue Shield of California concerns the plaintiffs’ request for permission to serve the defendants by publishing notice and for more time to serve them.
The plaintiffs sought permission to serve Blue Shield of California and Lorene Hackett by publication. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Donna Ryu denied the publication request without prejudice because the plaintiffs had not met California’s requirements or shown exhaustive efforts to locate the defendant. The court granted an extension of time to serve the defendants through March 20, 2024, and continued the initial case-management conference to May 15, 2024.
The detailed version
- Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Blue Shield of California · No. 4:23-cv-05534
- Donna Ryu
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and California Physicians’ Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, are the plaintiffs. The defendants are Blue Shield of California and Lorene Hackett. The plaintiffs filed an application without advance notice seeking permission to serve the defendants by publication and an extension of the time to serve them.
Rulings
The court denied without prejudice the request for permission to serve by publication. It cited the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50(a)(1) and failure to show “exhaustive attempts to locate the defendant.” Because the request was denied without prejudice, the order does not state that the plaintiffs are barred from making another request.
The court granted the request to extend the time to serve the defendants through March 20, 2024. It also continued the initial case-management conference from January 31, 2024, to May 15, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., by Zoom videoconference.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order addressed service of process and scheduling. The provided text does not state or decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.