Abc Services Group, Inc. v. Aetna Health & Life Ins. Co.

facts in favor of the non-moving party. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072

(9th Cir. 2005).

I. ABC’s Contract Claims

We affirm the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of ABC’s contract

claims for insufficient pleading. ABC failed to plead “any specific provisions of the

contracts,” and attached “example plans” of the service agreements, which were

impermissible as “conclusory allegations.” ABC argues that they could not plead

the specifics of each contract because it didn’t possess all the plans at this stage of

the litigation. ABC relies heavily on a Fifth Circuit case for the proposition that the

plaintiff need not plead the contract specifics when they are in the sole possession

of Defendants. See Innova Hosp. San Antonio, LP v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of

Ga., Inc., 892 F.3d 719, 730 (5th Cir. 2018). But assuming arguendo our court would

follow the Fifth Circuit’s rule in Innova, ABC’s reliance on Innova fails because

ABC did not even plead the specifics of the many plans it did possess. This fact

alone distinguishes ABC from the plaintiff in Innova. See id. (“[T]his is not a case

1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we discuss them here…