QuickMed Diagnostic, Inc. v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Defendants' motion to dismiss a complaint alleging underpayment of COVID-19 diagnostic testing claims, adopting the rationale from a related lead case and addressing specific arguments regarding pleading sufficiency and standing. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing several claims with or without leave to amend while allowing the ERISA benefits claim and request for declaratory relief to proceed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).“The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B);” | agree with court The court adopted the rationale from the lead case (Anthem) which presumably found the claim sufficiently pleaded. While the specific reasoning is not detailed in this order, the adoption of a prior ruling in a related case with similar facts is a standard procedural mechanism. The court also specifically rejected the argument that the class of claimants was insufficiently identified, citing authority that a description of the class is sufficient at the pleading stage. |
Granted with leave to amend Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fiduciary duty under § 502(a)(2).“The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fiduciary duty under § 502(a)(2);” | agree with court The court adopted the rationale from the lead case. In ERISA litigation, § 502(a)(2) claims often require specific allegations of fiduciary conduct or plan administration issues that may be distinct from simple benefit denials. Granting with leave to amend is a common outcome when the initial pleading is insufficient but potentially curable. |
Granted without leave to amend Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for violation of the FFCRA and CARES Act.“The Court GRANTS without leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for violation of the FFCRA and CARES Act;” | agree with court The court adopted the rationale from the lead case. FFCRA and CARES Act claims often have specific statutory requirements or preemption issues under ERISA that make them difficult to plead in this context. Denying leave to amend suggests the court found the deficiencies incurable or that the claims were fundamentally barred. |
Granted with leave to amend Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction regarding Plaintiff's Medicare claims due to failure to exhaust.“The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Plaintiff's Medicare claims, given Plaintiff's failure to exhaust;” | agree with court The court identified a jurisdictional defect (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) regarding Medicare claims. Granting with leave to amend allows the plaintiff to allege that exhaustion occurred or to clarify the nature of the claims, which is a standard response to a jurisdictional challenge based on procedural prerequisites. |
Granted with leave to amend Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims due to ERISA preemption.“The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law claims, given ERISA’s preemption provision; and” | agree with court ERISA preemption is a well-established doctrine that bars state law claims relating to employee benefit plans. The court found the state law claims preempted but allowed amendment, possibly to see if the plaintiff can replead them in a way that avoids preemption (e.g., by focusing on non-ERISA aspects) or to clarify the relationship to the plan. |
Denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the request for declaratory relief.“The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the request for declaratory relief.” | agree with court The court found that the request for declaratory relief was sufficiently pleaded, likely because it was tied to the surviving ERISA benefits claim. Declaratory relief is often available in ERISA cases to clarify plan terms or rights. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a short, procedural ruling that adopts the reasoning from a lead case in a related matter. It addresses two specific arguments raised in the briefing (identification of claimants and assignment/standing) with appropriate citations. The result is defensible and follows standard pleading standards. However, because it relies heavily on the 'Dismissal Order' from the lead case (which is not provided here), the full reasoning for the specific dismissals (e.g., FFCRA, fiduciary duty) is not visible in this document. The order is sound in its procedural handling and the specific arguments it addresses.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUICKMED DIAGNOSTIC, INC., Case No. 25-cv-3132-BAS-JAC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 15) 14 UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. 19 (ECF No. 15.) The motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 15, 20, 21.) The Court finds 20 Defendants’ motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted. See Fed. R. Civ. 21 P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 22 This case is one of related cases brought by Plaintiff against private insurance 23 companies for underpaid or unpaid claims related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing 24 services.1 On August 25, 2026, this Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in 25 26 1 The related cases before this Court are: Quickmed Diagnostic, Inc. v. Cigna Health Corp., No. 27 25-cv-03114-BAS-JAC (S.D. Cal. filed Nov. 12, 2025); Quickmed Diagnostic, Inc. v. Aetna Health and Life Ins. Co., No. 25-cv-03131-BAS-JAC (S.D. Cal. filed Nov. 12, 2025); and Quickmed Diagnostic, Inc. 28 1 part Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the lead case, Quickmed Diagnostic, Inc. v. Anthem 2 Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, No. 25-cv-02902-BAS-JAC (S.D. Cal. 3 filed Oct. 27, 2025) (“Dismissal Order”). 4 Having reviewed the briefing in the present case, the Court adopts the same rationale 5 as that outlined in the Dismissal Order. The Court briefly addresses a few additional 6 arguments raised in the briefing. 7 First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently identify the plans and/or 8 claims at issue. However, Plaintiff’s allegations are adequate. Plaintiff noted the class of 9 claimants within a specified period. See, e.g., Forest Ambulatory Surgical Assocs., L.P. v. 10 United HealthCare Ins. Co., No. 10-CV-04911-EJD, 2011 WL 2748724, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 11 July 13, 2011) (“The name of each individual beneficiary is not necessary at the pleading 12 stages, only the description of the class of beneficiaries is required.” (citation modified)). 13 The Court is unconvinced Defendants lack fair notice. 14 Second, Defendants contend that the complaint’s assignment clause does not 15 mention Plaintiff Quickmed by name. (Compl. ¶ 67.) Yet, the assignment clause embraces 16 Sameday Testing’s partner laboratories, and Plaintiff alleges it was a partner laboratory. 17 (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 66.) See Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 18 99 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“While there are certainly areas for more 19 definiteness, the Court rules that the alleged assignments are sufficiently definite to survive 20 a motion to dismiss on the issue of standing[.]”). Plaintiff sufficiently alleged assignment. 21 Accordingly, upon review, the Court INCORPORATES and ADOPTS the 22 reasoning from the Dismissal Order into this case. 23 Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion 24 to dismiss. Specifically: 25 • The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for benefits under 29 26 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); 27 • The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim 28 for breach of fiduciary duty under § 502(a)(2); I e The Court GRANTS without leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 2 claim for violation of the FFCRA and CARES Act; 3 e The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of 4 jurisdiction Plaintiff's Medicare claims, given Plaintiff's failure to exhaust; 5 e The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state 6 law claims, given ERISA’s preemption provision; and 7 e The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the request for declaratory relief. 8 9 Plaintiff does not have leave to add new claims or parties without the Court’s 10 |}permission. Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint on or before September 18, 2026. 11 || Tf Plaintiff declines to file an amended complaint by that deadline, then Defendants shall 12 || file an answer to the complaint by October 2, 2026. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ~ 15 || DATED: August 27, 2026 yatta Bihar Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 16 United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □□□