Sidibe

Sidibe v. Health

Good Law
51 F. Supp. 3d 870·2014 WL 2859206·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84589
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 20, 2014No. C 12-04854 LBCalifornia7,290 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beeler, J.

[Re: ECF No. 70]

ORDER GRANTING SUTTER HEALTH’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe, Diane Dewey, and Jerry Jankowski sued Sutter Health, a company that owns and operates hospitals and other health care service providers, alleging that Sutter’s anticompetitive conduct in the health care services industry in Northern California violates federal and state antitrust laws and California’s unfair competition law. See generally Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), ECF No. 69. 1 The alleged anticompetitive conduct is Sutter’s imposing tying arrangements that require health plans to include in their provider network, and pay supra-competitive rates for, all Inpatient Hospital Services that Sutter supplies in five tied hospital service area (“HSA”) markets (the San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Modesto, and Santa Rosa HSAs). If the health plans do not, then they cannot have access to Sutter’s “must have” Inpatient Hospital Services that Sutter supplies in the nine tying HSA markets (Antioch, Berkeley, Burlingame, Castro Valley, Davis, Roseville, San Lean-dro, Tracy, and Vallejo). TAC ¶ 5. Without…

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.