abstention doctrine in California

2012(See, e.g., Desert Healthcare Dist. v. PacifiCare FHP, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 781, 795 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 ].) Consequently, the abstention doctrine does not apply to plaintiffs’ legal claims, and the court had no discretion to apply this doctrine in dismissing the first cause of action in its entirety.

2012(See, e.g., Desert Healthcare Dist. v. PacifiCare FHP, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 781, 795 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 ].) Consequently, the abstention doctrine does not apply to plaintiffs’ legal claims, and the court had no discretion to apply this doctrine in dismissing the first cause of action in its entirety.

2015(See, e.g., Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1306 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado) [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for insufficient nursing hours per patient under applicable health care law]; Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1301 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 ] [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for third party liability provisions alleged to be unlawful under Knox-Keene Act]; see Acosta, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in invoking the abstention doctrine where petitioners were

2015(See, e.g., Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1306 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado) [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for insufficient nursing hours per patient under applicable health care law]; Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1301 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 ] [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for third party liability provisions alleged to be unlawful under Knox-Keene Act]; see Acosta, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in invoking the abstention doctrine where petitioners were

2015The Abstention Doctrine Under the abstention doctrine, “a trial court may abstain from adjudicating a suit that seeks equitable remedies if ‘granting the requested relief would require a trial court to assume the functions of an administrative agency, or to interfere with the functions of an administrative agency.’ [Citation.]” (Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 496 .) Abstention may also be appropriate if “‘the lawsuit involves determining complex economic policy, which is best handled by the Legislature or an administrative agency,’” or if “‘granting injunctive relief would be unnecessarily

2015The Abstention Doctrine Under the abstention doctrine, “a trial court may abstain from adjudicating a suit that seeks equitable remedies if ‘granting the requested relief would require a trial court to assume the functions of an administrative agency, or to interfere with the functions of an administrative agency.’ [Citation.]” (Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 496 .) Abstention may also be appropriate if “ ‘the lawsuit involves determining complex economic policy, which is best handled by the Legislature or an administrative agency,’ ” or if “ ‘granting injunctive relief would be unnecessar

2015An appellate court will “ ‘affirm the judgment if it is correct on any ground stated in the demurrer, regardless of the trial court’s stated reasons. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 544, 551 [ 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 ].) “In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, we ‘treat[] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded,’ but we do not ‘assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.’ [Citation.] We liberally construe the pleading to achieve substantial justice

2015An appellate court will “ ‘affirm the judgment if it is correct on any ground stated in the demurrer, regardless of the trial court’s stated reasons. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 544, 551 [ 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 ].) “In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, we ‘treat[] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded,’ but we do not ‘assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.’ [Citation.] We liberally construe the pleading to achieve substantial justice

2015The Abstention Doctrine Under the abstention doctrine, “a trial court may abstain from adjudicating a suit that seeks equitable remedies if ‘granting the requested relief would require a trial court to assume the functions of an administrative agency, or to interfere with the functions of an administrative agency.’ [Citation.]” (Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 496 .) Abstention may also be appropriate if “ ‘the lawsuit involves determining complex economic policy, which is best handled by the Legislature or an administrative agency,’ ” or if “ ‘granting injunctive relief would be unnecessar

2015To determine whether Kaiser systematically breached its health plan contract by denying coverage for applied behavior analysis therapy and speech therapy for autism spectrum disorders, the trial court would need to interpret the relevant terms of the contract, and decide whether the therapies are or are not covered services.” (Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 499 .) We noted further that the interpretation of contracts “ ‘is primarily a judicial function.’ ” (Id. at p. 500.) We also concluded that the other traditional grounds for invoking the abstention doctrine did not apply.

2015An appellate court will “ ‘affirm the judgment if it is correct on any ground stated in the demurrer, regardless of the trial court’s stated reasons. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 544, 551 [ 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 ].) “In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, we ‘treat[] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded,’ but we do not ‘assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.’ [Citation.] We liberally construe the pleading to achieve substantial justice

2015An appellate court will “ ‘affirm the judgment if it is correct on any ground stated in the demurrer, regardless of the trial court’s stated reasons. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 544, 551 [ 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 ].) “In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, we ‘treat[] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded,’ but we do not ‘assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.’ [Citation.] We liberally construe the pleading to achieve substantial justice

2015(See, e.g., Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1306 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado) [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for insufficient nursing hours per patient under applicable health care law]; Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1301 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 ] [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for third party liability provisions alleged to be unlawful under Knox-Keene Act]; see Acosta, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in invoking the abstention doctrine where petitioners were

2015(See, e.g., Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1306 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado) [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for insufficient nursing hours per patient under applicable health care law]; Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1301 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 ] [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for third party liability provisions alleged to be unlawful under Knox-Keene Act]; see Acosta, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in invoking the abstention doctrine where petitioners were

2015(See, e.g., Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1306 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado) [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for insufficient nursing hours per patient under applicable health care law]; Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1301 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 ] [abstention upheld as to UCL claims for third party liability provisions alleged to be unlawful under Knox-Keene Act]; see Acosta, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in invoking the abstention doctrine where petitioners were

2012(McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1474 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ] [abstention inappropriate where legislative determination as to the propriety of defendant’s actions already has been made through the enactment of the applicable laws]); accord, Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501-502; Blue Cross of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1259 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 ] (Blue Cross).) In upholding the use of the abstention doctrine, the Alvarado court concluded that compliance with the 3.2 NHPPD minimum staffing standard would require the court

2012(See Wehlage, supra, 791 F.Supp.2d at p. 786 [“the equitable abstention doctrine does not afford the Court discretion to abstain from hearing Plaintiff’s claims for damages under section 1430[, subdivision ](b)”]; Walsh v. Kindred Healthcare, supra, 798 F.Supp.2d at p. 1085 [courts have no discretion to abstain from adjudicating § 1430, subd. (b) claims to the extent damages are being requested].) Therefore, the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of equitable abstention to dismiss plaintiffs’ section 1430, subdivision (b) claim in its entirety was misplaced.

2012(See Wehlage, supra, 791 F.Supp.2d at p. 786 [“the equitable abstention doctrine does not afford the Court discretion to abstain from hearing Plaintiff’s claims for damages under section 1430[, subdivision ](b)”]; Walsh v. Kindred Healthcare, supra, 798 F.Supp.2d at p. 1085 [courts have no discretion to abstain from adjudicating § 1430, subd. (b) claims to the extent damages are being requested].) Therefore, the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of equitable abstention to dismiss plaintiffs’ section 1430, subdivision (b) claim in its entirety was misplaced.

2012(McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1474 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ] [abstention inappropriate where legislative determination as to the propriety of defendant’s actions already has been made through the enactment of the applicable laws]); accord, Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501-502; Blue Cross of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1259 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 ] (Blue Cross).) In upholding the use of the abstention doctrine, the Alvarado court concluded that compliance with the 3.2 NHPPD minimum staffing standard would require the court

2012(McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1474 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ] [abstention inappropriate where legislative determination as to the propriety of defendant’s actions already has been made through the enactment of the applicable laws]); accord, Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501-502; Blue Cross of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1259 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 ] (Blue Cross).) In upholding the use of the abstention doctrine, the Alvarado court concluded that compliance with the 3.2 NHPPD minimum staffing standard would require the court

2005(See Fineberg v. Niekerk (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 935, 939 , 221 Cal.Rptr. 106 ; see also Friedman, Cal. Practice Guide: Corporations (The Rutter Group 2005) ¶ 6:598, p. 6-127 [shareholder derivative action and direct suit by shareholder for individual wrong "are mutually exclusive"].) Furthermore, even if the Additional Claims represented an immaterial variance as the Raiders claims, this is of no consequence: The trial court, despite concluding that the Additional Claims were not pleaded, held also that they were nonetheless barred by the abstention doctrine.

2005(See Fineberg v. Niekerk (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 935, 939 , 221 Cal.Rptr. 106 ; see also Friedman, Cal. Practice Guide: Corporations (The Rutter Group 2005) ¶ 6:598, p. 6-127 [shareholder derivative action and direct suit by shareholder for individual wrong "are mutually exclusive"].) Furthermore, even if the Additional Claims represented an immaterial variance as the Raiders claims, this is of no consequence: The trial court, despite concluding that the Additional Claims were not pleaded, held also that they were nonetheless barred by the abstention doctrine.

2005It is used in appropriate cases to prevent future harm. ( Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 386 , 134 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 556 P.2d 755 ; Brockey v. Moore, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 103 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 746 .) Even where a remedy is permitted, however, it is not required: "Section 17203 does not mandate restitution or injunctive relief when an unfair business practice has been shown." ( Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 180, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 .) Various equitable grounds may support a court's decision not to act on

2005It is used in appropriate cases to prevent future harm. ( Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 386 , 134 Cal.Rptr. 393 , 556 P.2d 755 ; Brockey v. Moore, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 103 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 746 .) Even where a remedy is permitted, however, it is not required: "Section 17203 does not mandate restitution or injunctive relief when an unfair business practice has been shown." ( Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 180, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 .) Various equitable grounds may support a court's decision not to act on

2001(See also Congress of Cal. Seniors v. Catholic Healthcare West (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 491, 510-511 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ].) Although the abstention doctrine enunciated in Diaz and Naegele could be limited to the context of federal-state relations, the underlying rationale— that a court of equity has the discretion to withhold its aid—has been applied outside that context.

2001(See also Congress of Cal. Seniors v. Catholic Healthcare West (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 491, 510-511 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ].) Although the abstention doctrine enunciated in Diaz and Naegele could be limited to the context of federal-state relations, the underlying rationale— that a court of equity has the discretion to withhold its aid—has been applied outside that context.