Simon

Simon v. Value Behavioral Health, Inc.

Good Law
2000 Daily Journal DAR 2905·208 F.3d 1073·2000 WL 282655·24 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1208·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2120
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 17, 2000No. 98-55905California3,090 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wiggins, J.

Appellant Stephen Simon appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil suit against approximately 1,600 defendants in the health insurance industry. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we AFFIRM.

I.

When filing this appeal, Simon requested initial en banc hearing pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The judges of this circuit were notified of this request, but no judge called for an en banc vote. Simon’s request is therefore denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(f).

II.

Over 600 mental health care patients assigned their benefit claims to at least six mental health care providers who later reassigned these claims to Simon. In June 1996, Simon filed suit to recover on these claims from approximately 1,600 defendants (collectively “Appellees”) consisting primarily of insurance companies, insurance company agents, insurance industry trade groups, employee benefit plans, employers, and governmental entities. His complaint alleged, inter alia, that Appellees violated (1) the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; (2) Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1001 ; (3)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.