Brian H. v. Blue Shield of California
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 BRIAN H., et al., Case No. 17-cv-03095-MMC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’
v. OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, et CALIFORNIA’S BILL OF COSTS al., Re: Dkt. No. 123 Defendants.
12 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Objection, filed September 4, 2019, “to defendant 13 California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California’s [“Blue Shield”] Bill of Costs.” 14 Blue Shield has filed a Response thereto. Having read and considered the parties’ 15 respective written submissions, the Court rules as follows: 16 Plaintiffs contend Blue Shield “improperly relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 54(d)(1), rather than the governing ERISA statute 29 U.S.C. 1132(g).” (See Pls.’ Obj. at 18 1:26-27). Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, however, the Ninth Circuit, in Quan v. 19 Computer Sciences Corp., has found Rule 54(d)(1) is not supplanted by § 1132(g). See…