# Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

> District Court, N.D. California · August 13, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124359

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 13, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124359

## Opinion text

— eee Ee oe le ee et ee te et he t “ao a TT

emu
PL
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL □□□
on 705 WE 13 PIBNS
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION US. DISTRI CT COURT
iD. OF ALABAMA
IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 2406

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the twelve actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel
Rule 7.1 to vacate our orders that conditionally transferred the actions to the Northern District of
Alabama for inclusion in MDL No. 2406. More than 30 Blue Cross Blue Shield defendants oppose
the motions to vacate, as do the provider class plaintiffs in the MDL.
After considering the parties’ arguments, we find that the actions listed on Schedule A
involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2406, and that transfer
under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just.and efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer is warranted for the reasons set forth in our
initial order establishing this MDI docket, which is comprised of actions involving factual
questions regarding ‘“‘the licensing agreements between and among the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association (BCBSA) and its 38 licensees (Blue Plans).” Jn re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust
Litig., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2012). There are two categories of MDL plaintiffs,
health insurance subscribers and healthcare providers, both of which “contend that the 38 Blue
Plans are independent health insurance companies that, but for any agreement to the contrary,
could and would compete with one another.” Jd. at 1375. Plaintiffs in the twelve actions listed on
Schedule A are providers (hospitals, health systems, and physician groups), and the allegations in
their complaints mirror those asserted in the MDL actions.
Plaintiffs in these actions have opted out of a proposed class settlement of the provider
claims inthe MDL. They argue that the MDL is too advanced to justify transferring these provider
opt-out actions. Plaintiffs contend that the MDL has reached the remand stage, that the transferee
judge has stated that continued centralized pretrial proceedings of the provider actions would not
be efficient, and that the remaining factual questions in the provider actions—such as adjudication
of injury-in-fact and damages—are plaintiff-specific. Plaintiffs further argue that transfer will
cause them inconvenience by, infer alia, delaying the prosecution of their claims. They maintain
that they can informally coordinate with respect to any common discovery.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Settlement approval proceedings with respect
to the MDL provider plaintiffs are ongoing. If the settlement is not granted final approval,
substantial pretrial proceedings will remain. See Transfer Order at 2 n.4, In re Payment Card
Interchang e-& Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 16, 2013), ECF No.
1 K OR Sa at
4, Ee ie
TRUE COPR A Nia :
te A Pow

IERIE IO OSI BEI OUND NE IBID IIA ESS Oe eee

-2-
204 (“The Panel has long recognized that transfer of opt-out actions to the MDL addressing the
proposed class settlement. is desirable because of the efficiencies from the transferee court’s
management of overlapping actions, integration of existing discovery with discovery in the new
actions, and the court’s expertise in the issues.”).
Furthermore, the parties have identified one provider opt-out action pending in the MDL
(the A4 action), and at least three other provider opt-out actions have been filed—one of which
recently was transferred to the MDL without opposition. See Conditional Transfer Order
(Finalized), MDL No. 2406 (J.P.M.L. July 30, 2025), ECF No. 934. The factual and legal issues
raised by the provider opt-out actions, as well as their procedural posture, are substantially similar.
Plaintiffs focus on the common discovery and pretrial motion practice that have been completed
in the MDL, but they unduly minimize the common pretrial proceedings that opt-out litigation
itself will entail. Most of the opt-out actions name all the Blue Cross Blue Shield entities as
defendants, and even those that are targeted at a narrower set of Blue Cross Blue Shield entities
overlap with the others. All plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ nationwide market allocation
scheme and other anticompetitive conduct caused them economic injury. While the opt-out actions
will require some unique discovery as to damages issues, they also will require common discovery
of the defendants’ alleged conspiracy. The transferee court is best positioned to manage access to
the common discovery obtained to date (much of which is subject to protective orders), apply its
prior rulings to the opt-out claims, address legal questions common to the opt-out plaintiffs, and
organize any additional common discovery required for these actions.’ Transfer thus will
eliminate the potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings.
No provider actions have been remanded by the transferee court. We have consulted with
the transferee judge, who has informed the Panel that the continued transfer of provider opt-out
actions will yield significant efficiency and convenience benefits: Given the number of opt-out
actions already filed and the number of involved counsel, transfer of the opt-out actions to a single
Judge with extensive familiarity with the issues, discovery, and players in this litigation will be far
more efficient than the parties attempting to informally coordinate pretrial schedules among
actions pending in at least seven district courts to date.
Plaintiffs offer only speculation to support their argument that transfer will result in delay.
There is no reason to believe that transfer of these opt-out actions will delay final approval of the □ -
provider class settlement. Indeed, the transferee court has already conducted the fairness hearing
for the settlement. Likewise, there is no reason to believe the transferee court will delay addressing
the common pretrial issues and discovery in the opt-out actions. The conduct of the subscriber
track demonstrates that, when common pretrial proceedings have concluded, the transferee court
has shown a willingness to promptly suggest Section 1407 remand, See Suggestion of Remand,
MDL No. 2406 (J.P.M.L. Nov. 18, 2024), ECF No. 576 (suggesting remand of subscriber opt-out
action). See also In re Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Prods. Liab. Litig.,717 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378
' In their opposition to the motions to vacate, the MDL provider class plaintiffs describe significant
confidentiality issues that arose with respect to the production of the MDL common discovery in
related California state litigation, which required substantia! time and attention by the transferee
court. Such issues are likely to be duplicated if the opt-out actions proceed separately in multiple
districts.

et er er Ee ee ee ae a er et er ee ke BOOTED NA er fee t woe ws ML

. 3.
(J.P.M.L. 2010) (encouraging the transferee court to suggest remand if it “determines that the
further adjudication of certain claims or actions would better take place in the transferor district”).
In any event, where the actions arise from a common factual core, plaintiffs’ individual preferences
do not outweigh the collective benefits of centralization to the parties, witnesses, and judicial
system as a whole. See In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1350,
1351-52 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“[W]Je look to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not
Just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation.”). Notably, plaintiffs in three of the actions
listed on Schedule A (Temple University Health System, LHHeaith, and Phoebe Putney Memorial
Hospital) do not oppose transfer if any other opt-out actions are transferred to the MDL.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Northern District of Alabama and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable R.
David Proctor for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Karen K. Caldwell
/ Chair

. Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F. Kennelly
David C. Norton Roger T. Benitez
Dale A. Kimball Madeline Cox Arleo

Ae ere ee ee Ee eee cl ee Se et Re le FR Le ee Ne ee te i “Sa a at

IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 2406 ~

. SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC., ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25-02231 □
NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25-03570
Middle District of Georgia
PHOEBE PUTNEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25-00062
Northern District of Illinois se
IES CENTRAL TEXAS PLLC, ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
ALABAMA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25-02267
AMERITEAM SERVICES, ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
ALABAMA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25-02295
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
ALABAMA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25-02296
ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM SUNBELT HEALTHCARE CORPORATE, ET AL.
v. BLUE CROSS AND.BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:25-02367
DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25-03565

□ Southern District of New York
WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25-02516
Eastern District of Pennsylvania □

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., ET AL. v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25-01156
LHHEALTH, LLC v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:25-01158

PVIRY □□□ GW OP et Pe re 2 MP fe My we LT et
-A2-

Middle District of Pennsylvania . □
MOUNT NITTANY HEALTH SYSTEM vy. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:25-00549

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11124359. Public record. Not legal advice.