Plaintiff, a court-appointed Canadian receiver, filed an action against defendant corporate entities alleging that defendants were liable for violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1962(a)-(d), and for claims of unjust enrichment, fraud and concealment, civil conspiracy, conversion, to set aside or annul fraudulent transfers, imposition of a constructive trust, and unfair competition under state law. Defendants filed a motion for security for costs.
After the receiver had initiated its complaint, it sought an ex parte motion to freeze defendants’ assets, which was denied. Thereafter, the receiver filed a first amended complaint, and defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint was denied. Defendants sought security from the receiver, ostensibly under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1030 (2006), alleging that the denial of the ex parte relief and a polygraph taken by one of the defendants showed that there was a reasonable probability that there would be a judgment in defendants’ favor. The court assumed without deciding that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1030 (2006) applied and additionally considered the factors set forth in Simulnet. At the early stage of the proceedings, the court determined that it could not conclude that defendants had a reasonable opportunity of a judgment on the merits because defendants had not argued or offered evidence to substantially refute the receiver’s claim. The court could not draw any inference about the merits of the claim from the denial of the request for ex parte relief. Further, the admissibility of the polygraph was questionable under the Daubert standard. Parties’ litigation attorney California appeal.
The court denied defendants’ motion for security for costs.
Plaintiff insured brought suit against defendant arbitration association and alleged that the association violated its internal policy that health care disputes be arbitrated under its health care arbitration rules by arbitrating her dispute with her health insurer under its commercial rules. The association moved to dismiss the entire complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
The insured was examined by a physician in her insurance plan. Subsequently, the insured filed complaints with the insurance company and alleged that the doctor’s examination was inappropriate and sexually motivated. The insurance company investigated the complaint and concluded that the physician’s examination was necessary and appropriate. The insured filed a demand for arbitration with the arbitration association. The arbitrator found against the insured. After an unsuccessful appeal, the insured filed suit against the association. The association moved to dismiss. The court found that the association’s policy was not independent of the arbitration process given that the policy dictated how the arbitration would proceed. The insured’s argument that the association lacked jurisdiction over her arbitration dispute failed where the insured submitted to the association’s jurisdiction when she filed and proceeded with a demand for arbitration. The two exceptions to arbitral immunity did not apply so the association was immune from suit. The action served as a collateral attack which the finality doctrine and collateral estoppel prohibited. Parties’ litigation attorneys Los Angeles appeal.
The association’s motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend.