City of Hope etc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield etc. CA2/5

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff City of Hope National Medical Center (City of Hope) appeals from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s1 motion to quash service summons. According to City of Hope, the motion should have been denied because it made a prima facie showing that the health plan availed itself of the benefits of the forum state by offering health insurance coverage and advertising in California. In the alternative, City of Hope contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the request to conduct jurisdiction-related discovery. We affirm.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Complaint

On November 17, 2023, City of Hope filed a complaint against the health plan and Blue Shield, asserting, among others, causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract. City of Hope based its claims on the following facts. From November 14, 2017, through May 23, 2018, City of Hope provided medically necessary and physician-ordered care to a patient who was a member of a health plan insured and

Defendant and respondent is BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina (the health plan). The other named defendant,…