Brian H. v. Blue Shield of California
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 BRIAN H., et al., Case No. 17-cv-03095-MMC
7 Plaintiffs,
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’
8 v. OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE
9 CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, et CALIFORNIA’S BILL OF COSTS 10 al., Re: Dkt. No. 123 11 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…