Order: Rouillard VS Alameda Alliance for Health

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                California  Department   of Managed                                Alameda   Alliance  for Health
                     Health  Care
                     Attn:  Brereton,  Drew
                     980  9th St.
                     #500
                     Sacramento,   CA     95814-2725

                                        Superior      Court     of California,      County      of  Alameda
                                                          Hayward        Hall   of  Justice

                   Rouillard                                                                   No.  RG14724068
                                                       Plaintiff/Petitioner(s)
                                                                                                      Order
                                             VS.

                                                                                               Motion   toIntervene

                   Alameda   Alliance  for Health                                                     Denied
                                                   Defendant/Respondent(s)
                                      (Abbreviated Title)




                  The  Motion  to Intervene  was  set for hearing  on 10/03/2014   at 02:30  PM   inDepartment    516  before the
                  Honorable   Brenda   Harbin-Forte.   The  Tentative  Ruling  was  published  and  has not been  contested.

                  IT IS HEREBY      ORDERED       THAT:

                  The  tentative ruling is affirmed as  follows:  On  the motion  of Intervenor  Bay  Area  Consortium   for
                  Quality  Health  Care, Inc. ("BAC")    forleave  of court to intervene, the court orders  as follows:

                  The  motion  is DENIED.

                  First, BAC's  motion   isuntimely.   A motion  to intervene  isproperly  denied  where  itcomes   "too late to be
                  entertained  as presenting  any issue for the judgment   of the court..." (Seligman   etal. v. City of Santa
                  Rosa  (1897  Cir. Ct., N.D.  Cal.)  81 F. 524,  525-526.)   BAC   argues  that itshould  be permitted  to
                  intervene  insupport  of the Department    of Managed   Health  Care's  ("DMHC")     petition to confirm
                  appointment   of a conservator,  but the court  already confirmed   the Director  of DMHC's    appointment   of
                  a conservator  on  July 23, 2014.

                  Second,  BAC    has not made   a showing  that joinder is compulsory   because   BAC   has not  shown  that it
                  has  "an interestrelating to the property  or transaction  which  isthe  subject of the action" and  that it“is
                  so situated that the disposition  ofthe  action may  as a practical matter  impair  or impede  that person's
                  ability toprotect  that interest." (Code  Civ. Proc.,  section 387,  subd. (b).) BAC's   stated interest isin the
                  success  of the Director's application  for confirmation  of the appointment    ofthe conservator,  who,   as
                  discussed  above,  has already  been  confirmed.   BAC   has not  shown  any  other specific interest ithas that
                  will be impaired  by  the resolution of this matter.   Moreover,   BAC’s   interest isadequately   represented
                  by the Director  of the DMHC     who,  upon  taking  possession  of the Plan and  appointing  a conservator,
                  assumed   the management    of the Plan  and became   the entity to which  providers  can  address their
                  grievances.

                  Third,  BAC   has not shown   that the court should  exercise  itsdiscretion to allow  permissive  intervention.
                  As  discussed  above,  BAC   has not  demonstrated   that ithas a direct and  immediate  interest in the
                  litigationwhere   the appointment   of a conservator  has already  been  confirmed.   Furthermore,   permitting
                  BAC   to intervene  atthis stage would   potentially enlarge the  issues for the court in monitoring  the
                  conservatorship.   If BAC   seeks  opportunity  for redress on  any issue beyond   confirmation   ofthe
                  conservatorship,   thatwould   greatly expand   the issues before the court  and complicate   these
                  proceedings.   Finally, BAC   has  not shown   thatthe  reasons favoring  intervention  outweigh  the interests


                                                                     Order
                  of the parties in the timely and  orderly resolution  ofthis matter.

                  The  court will prepare  the order and  mail copies  to the parties. Counsel  for Applicant  DMHC      shall file
                  and  serve the Notice  of Entry  of Order no  laterthan  ten (10) days  afterthe  date shown  on  the clerk's
                  certificate ofmailing.


                          Dated:   10/03/2014

                                                                                           Judge Brenda  Harbin-Forte




                                                                     Order