RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al.

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

This matter was previously continued from August 17, 2026, for the purposes of oral argument. The original tentative ruling is republished below.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Notice of Motion does not provide the correct notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendants’ counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendants’ counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendants’ counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., the Permanente Medical Group, Inc. and Jonathan Hartman, M.D.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or “Kaiser”) Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiff Rameesa Safay’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

Allegations in Complaint

This action for negligence arises out of medical treatment allegedly received by Plaintiff through Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2024, Plaintiff experienced leg pain and urinary retention. (Compl., ¶ 34.) Imaging of Plaintiff’s spine showed a “spinal arteriovenous malformation[,] a rare, congenital tangle of abnormal blood vessels where arteries connect

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

directly to veins, bypassing capillaries.” (Ibid.) “This ‘miswiring’ causes high-pressure arterial blood to damage weaker veins, potentially leading to serious issues like seizures, headaches, bleeding, weakness, or stroke if it ruptures.” (Ibid.)

On November 15, 2024, Defendant Jonathan Hartman, M.D. (“Hartman”) performed a diagnostic spinal angiogram, identifying the anatomy of the malformation, and identified an intranidal aneurysm. (Compl., ¶ 35.) A multidisciplinary conference occurred on December 6, 2024, to determine the proposed treatment plan. (Compl., ¶ 36.) On January 13, 2025, a treatment plan was formulated to attempt to embolize the malformation. (Compl., ¶ 37.) The embolization procedure took place on January 29, 2025, under the care of Hartman. (Compl., ¶ 38.) During the procedure, Hartman allegedly perforated Plaintiff’s anterior spinal artery, resulting in hemorrhage and an ischemic injury to the artery. (Compl., ¶¶ 41, 42.) During the dates alleges in the complaint, Hartman was a physician who belonged to or was employed by Defendant The Permanente Medical Group (“TPMG”). (Carlile Decl. 2.)

As a result of the perforation and ischemic injury, Plaintiff was paralyzed in her right lower leg and suffered severe weakness in her left lower leg. (Compl., ¶ 43.) Post operative scans showed “the devastating nature of the injury.” (Compl., ¶ 44.)

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a single cause of action for negligence against all defendants. Plaintiff, a minor, brings this action by and through her guardian ad litem, Abdul Safay. (See Compl., ¶ 33.)

Dismissal of Defendant Hartman

On June 1, 2026, after the pending motion was filed, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of Defendant Hartman, without prejudice, which was entered by the Court.

Kaiser’s participation in Medi-Cal for Sacramento County

The federal Medicaid statute allows states to deliver services through managed care plans (health maintenance organizations [“HMOs”] and other health plans) that agree to accept the risk of health-care costs in exchange for monthly premiums. (Velarde Decl. ¶ 2.) California has made such an election in its Medicaid program, called “Medi-Cal.” (Ibid.) California authorizes DHCS and county governments or Commissions to contract with managed-care plans to deliver services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. (Ibid.) One type of Medi-Cal managed care arrangement is the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

Geographic Managed Care (“GMC”) plan in which DHCS contracts with multiple Knox-Keene plans, such as Kaiser, within a particular county, and Medi-Cal beneficiaries may choose from among those plans. Sacramento County uses the GMC model, and Kaiser is one of the plans that has a GMC contract with DHCS for the provision of covered health care services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. (Ibid.) Beginning January 1, 2024, Kaiser contracts with DHCS as an alternate health care service plan with a GMC contract to provide services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries meeting certain enrollment criteria. (Ibid.)

Kaiser is required to prepare and distribute a Member Handbook / EOC describing the terms and conditions of coverage for Kaiser members enrolled in Medi-Cal plans. (Velarde Decl. ¶ 3.) Starting with the 2018 plan year, DHCS began issuing a Member Handbook template for Medi- Cal managed-care plans to use as the basis for the Member Handbook going forward. (Ibid.) Kaiser uses the DHCS Member Handbook template as the basis for all of its Medi-Cal Member Handbooks. (Ibid.) Kaiser submits its Medi-Cal Member Handbooks applicable to Medi-Cal enrollees in Sacramento County to DHCS for review and approval and to the Knox-Keene regulatory agency, Department of Managed Health Care (“DMHC”) for review and approval. (Ibid.)

Until the 2019-2020 plan year, Kaiser mailed to the family unit of each new subscriber in the Medi-Cal plan a copy of the Member Handbook shortly after they enrolled and, after receiving the required regulatory approval, mailed to the family unit of each continuing subscriber a copy of the new Member Handbook each time Kaiser revised it. (Velarde Decl. ¶ 6.[1]) In November 2019, Kaiser received DMHC approval to provide electronic online access to its Medi-Cal Member Handbooks in lieu of mailing print copies. (Ibid.)

The Medi-Cal Member Handbooks contain an arbitration provision which states:

When you choose to enroll in Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. as your Medi-Cal health plan, you agree to use binding arbitration to settle disputes. This is a required step before you can enroll in our Medi-Cal Plan.

(Velarde Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B.)

Plaintiff’s Enrollment with Kaiser

Plaintiff has been enrolled as a Kaiser Medical member from April 1, 2019 to the present under a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

contract between Kaiser and the Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”). (Deniz Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s father enrolled Plaintiff in the Kaiser plan, via telephone. (Pierrou Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. M.)

DHCS exclusively managed and carried out the process by which Plaintiff was enrolled as a Medi-Cal member. (Deniz Decl. ¶ 4.) While Medi-Cal beneficiaries must meet eligibility requirements to enroll in certain Kaiser Medi-Cal plans, Defendants must accept as members all Medi-Cal beneficiaries who wish to enroll and meet the set criteria. (Ibid.) Defendants have no ability to interfere with the enrollment process or to substitute its own enrollment form. (Ibid.)

Kaiser contracts with a vendor to print and mail notices and other correspondence to members. (Guha Decl. ¶ 2.) The vendor provides an electronic mailing confirmation containing the details of when the correspondence was mailed, which Kaiser stores in the Document Management Shared Services (“DMSS”) section of Kaiser’s Member Services Department. (Ibid.) Kaiser’s records reflect that Kaiser mailed to Plaintiff’s household the 2023 Annual Medical Member Notice, the 2024 Annual Medi-Cal Member Notice, and the 2025 Annual MediCal Member Notice as well as the 2020-2022 Annual Medi-Cal Member Notices. (Guha Decl., ¶ 3, Exhs. E- I.)[2] These Notices include the following language:

I understand that Kaiser Permanente requires the use of binding arbitration to solve certain problems. This includes:  Problems about whether the right medical treatment was provided (called medical malpractice)  Other problems related to benefits or the delivery of care

In selecting Kaiser Permanente as my health network:  I understand that I give up my right to a jury or court trial for these certain disputes  I also agree to use binding arbitration to resolve these certain disputes  I understand that I have not given up my right to a state hearing on any issue, which is subject to the state hearing process

If I choose binding arbitration, I will be responsible for paying my share of the cost of the binding arbitration, including lawyers' fees, witness fees, and other costs.

(Guha Decl., Exhs. E-H.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

Plaintiff’s Position

In or around April of 2019, Plaintiff’s father, Abdul Safay called the Health Care Options program, and requested that Plaintiff’s Medi-Cal coverage be switched from Anthem Blue Shield to Kaiser. (Safey Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) During this call, no one used the word “arbitration” or told him that by enrolling in Kaiser, Plaintiff would give up the right to a jury trial. (Safay Decl., ¶ 5.) Mr. Safay did not sign any arbitration agreement as part of the transition from Anthem to Kaiser. (Safay Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7.) Plaintiff represents that Mr. Safay does not recall ever receiving a document that informed him that the Kaiser plan included a binding-arbitration requirement. (Safay Decl., ¶ 9.)

The Pending Motion

Defendants now move to compel arbitration pursuant to this provision. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that Defendants have not established that she agreed to such a provision.

Legal Standard

Under California law, arbitration must be compelled where there is a valid, binding arbitration agreement unless the opposing party proves the agreement is unenforceable on unconscionability or other grounds. (See, e.g., Armendariz v. Foundation Health (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 96-100, 114; Gatton v. T-Mobile USA (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579.) In fact, Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2 specifically provides, in pertinent part:

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that:

(a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.

(Underline added for emphasis.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is essentially the same:

A written provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

(Underline added for emphasis.) The court's role under the FAA is limited to “determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, it if does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” (Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.)

California has a public policy which encourages arbitrations, and arbitration clauses have been repeatedly enforced. (See, e.g., Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9 [the California Supreme Court stated this state has a “strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”]; Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 707 [California’s statutory scheme “evidence[s] a strong public policy in favor of arbitrations [as a] favored method of resolving disputes”]; Gross v. Recabaren (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 771, 775; Berman v. Dean Witter Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003; Greenfield v. Mosley (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 735, 744.)

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.) “In a petition to compel arbitration, the party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.] The party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense, including that an arbitration provision is invalid or otherwise not enforceable.” (Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Servs., Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 314, 325.)

“The burden of persuasion is always on the moving party to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement with the opposing party by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (Gamboa) (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164.) “However, the burden of production may shift in a three-step process.” (Id. at p. 165.) The moving party meets the initial burden by attaching to the moving papers a copy of the alleged arbitration agreement or setting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

forth its terms verbatim. (Ibid.; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1330.) “For this step, ‘it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.’” (Ibid., quoting Candee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218.) Once the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. (Ibid.) If the opposing party meets its burden, the moving party must then offer admissible evidence to demonstrate the arbitration agreement is valid. (Ibid.)

Normal principles of contract interpretation apply to the interpretation of contractual arbitration provisions. Included among these is the long-accepted rule that ambiguities in an arbitration agreement, as in any other type of contract, must be interpreted against the drafting party. Interpretation of ambiguous provisions requires application of the canons of construction - such as resolving ambiguities against the drafter. (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 739, 745-747.)

Discussion

Valid Arbitration Agreement

Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because she did not consent to be bound by arbitration.

The California Supreme Court in Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699 held that a health care recipient need not sign an arbitration agreement where an entity representing recipient interests negotiated medical plan coverage on their behalf, thus agreeing to arbitration in an agent or fiduciary capacity. (Id., at p. 709.) In the Medi-Cal context, DHCS negotiates the agreements on behalf of Medi-Cal beneficiaries under federal Medicaid and state Medi-Cal law. (Wills v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (N.D.

Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. 25-CV- 01948-LB) 2025 WL 3101976, at p. *4; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1396u-2(a)(1)(A)(i); Cal. Welfare & Inst. Code § 14200 et seq.) “By enrolling in the plans, Medi-Cal beneficiaries bind themselves to the terms of the plan set forth in the plan handbooks, including arbitration and the jury-trial waiver.” (Wills, supra, 2025 WL 3101976, at *4 (citing Madden, supra, 17 Cal. 3d at 709 n.11 [CalPERS bound state employee to arbitrate; notice, not knowledge, is required].)

In this case, the Medi-Cal Member Handbooks sets out the Health Plan terms. (See Velarde Decl., ¶ 5, Exhs. A-C.) As set forth above, Kaiser is required to use the DHCS template as the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

basis for all of its Medi-Cal Member Handbooks and it is submitted to DHCS and DHMC for review and approval before distribution. (Velarde Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) The Medi-Cal Member Handbooks require binding arbitration. (See Velarde Decl., Exh. A at pp. 167-173, Exh. C at pp. 90-95.) As such, the Court finds that, in reviewing and approving the terms of the Health Plan set forth in Medi-Cal Member Handbooks, DHCS and DMHC entered into an agreement with Kaiser regarding such terms, including the term of binding arbitration, which bind Medi-Cal beneficiaries that enroll in the plan.

As a United States District Court in the Northern District of California has noted, the legislative and regulatory structure of California’s Medi-Cal system allows for a Medi-Cal beneficiary to have “powerful entities [including the state of California] effectively negotiating on [their] behalf.” (Winninger v. Scott (N.D. Cal., July 5, 2022, No. 21-CV-04689-HSG) 2022 WL 3205035, at p. *4.) Indeed, “[h]aving the contracts negotiated on a system-wide level is a significant benefit of the Medi-Cal system.

By negotiating an array of health care plan options for individuals to choose from, Medi-Cal achieves more favorable terms than an individual would be likely to negotiate on his or her own.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, in Winninger, the Court held that Kaiser’s binding arbitration provisions were enforceable against a Medi-Cal beneficiary and was not unconscionable as a contract of adhesion, particularly where the plaintiff “enjoyed the opportunity to select from among several medical plans negotiated and offered . . . or to contract individually for medical care.” (Id. at p. *5.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there is a valid arbitration agreement based on the reviewed and approved Medi-Cal Member Handbooks.

Health & Safety Code section 1363.1

Plaintiff argues that the motion should also be denied because Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 1361.3. Kaiser contends that section 1361.3 does not apply to Medi-Cal enrollments because the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for simplified enrollments preempts the written disclosure requirements of section 1361.3

Health and Safety Code section 1363.1 states:

Any health care service plan that includes terms that require binding arbitration to settle disputes and that restrict, or provide for a waiver of, the right to a jury trial shall include, in clear and understandable language, a disclosure that meets all of the following

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

conditions:

(a) The disclosure shall clearly state whether the plan uses binding arbitration to settle disputes, including specifically whether the plan uses binding arbitration to settle claims of medical malpractice.

(b) The disclosure shall appear as a separate article in the agreement issued to the employer group or individual subscriber and shall be prominently displayed on the enrollment form signed by each subscriber or enrollee.

(c) The disclosure shall clearly state whether the subscriber or enrollee is waiving his or her right to a jury trial for medical malpractice, other disputes relating to the delivery of service under the plan, or both, and shall be substantially expressed in the wording provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1295 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(d) In any contract or enrollment agreement for a health care service plan, the disclosure required by this section shall be displayed immediately before the signature line provided for the representative of the group contracting with a health care service plan and immediately before the signature line provided for the individual enrolling in the health care service plan.

Nevertheless, federal law requires that states simplify enrollment procedures, including forms that may be “filed online, in person, by mail, or by telephone.” (42 U.S.C. sections 1396w-3(a)- (b), 18083(b).) Accordingly, under federal law, states must allow phone enrollments, which would not provide for written forms or signatures, as expressly contemplated by section 1363.1. (See Wills, supra, 2025 WL 3101976, at *4.)

In addressing the argument that the streamlined processes do not preclude an arbitration disclosure that complies with section 1363.1, the Wills Court reasoned:

But DHCS, which by statute controls enrollment . . . has not required that process. For example, it could have authorized only written enrollment with a disclosure over the signature line or allowed telephone enrollment only after an arbitration disclosure.[] Its use of a simplified process is consistent with the Legislature’s approval of the use of managed-care plans for Medi-Cal beneficiaries to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

encourage efficient delivery of healthcare services, reduce the “inflationary costs of health care,” improve the quality of services, and reduce the administrative costs of operating the Medi-Cal program. Id. § 14201. It also is consistent with the Affordable Care Act’s simplification of Medicaid enrollment by permitting enrollment by means other the paper. Requiring disclosure of the arbitration provision is inconsistent with a mandated default enrollment.

In addition, the regulatory scheme leaves no room for health plans to impose an additional requirement to sign an enrollment form complying with § 1363.1: once DHCS/PHC notified Kaiser that the plaintiff was a member of the plan, Kaiser was required to accept him.[]

No case requires DHCS to conform to state laws like § 1363.1 that govern non- Medi-Cal Knox-Keene plans regulated by a different state agency (the California Department of Managed Health Care).[] Moreover, even if DHCS could not exempt Medi-Cal enrollments from § 1363.1, the ACA’s amendments to the Medicaid Act — requiring a simplified enrollment process, including phone enrollment — preempt § 1363.1. See Winninger v. Scott, 2022 No. 21-CV-04689- HSG, 2022 WL 3205035, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022) (the ACA’s “simplified enrollment procedure” was inconsistent with state arbitration disclosure and signature requirements under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 § 6470); Hunter v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 3d 764, 773 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (ACA amendments for telephone and online enrollments preempt § 1363.1).

(Wills, supra, 2025 WL 3101976, at *4.)

The Court finds the reasoning in Wills persuasive. As such, the Court finds that Kaiser need not comply with section 1363.1 under the circumstances present in this case in order to enforce the binding arbitration provisions.

Moreover, the Court finds that Kaiser has presented sufficient evidence of notice of the binding arbitration provisions through its mailing of the Medi-Cal Member Handbook as well as the Annual Medi-Cal Member Notices. While Plaintiff’s father contends that he does not recall receiving notices that informed him of a binding-arbitration requirement, the Court finds that such statement does not overcome the evidentiary showing submitted by Defendants on this issue.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000043: RAMEESA SAFAY, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ABDUL SAFAY vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8D

Accordingly, the plaintiff — who was notified about the plan terms in the plan handbooks and through annual notices from Kaiser — is bound by the terms of the plan, including binding arbitration for the types of claim presented by this litigation.

Disposition

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This action is STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Defendants’ request for costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1293.2 is DENIED without prejudice. Section 1293.2 states, “[t]he court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” Notably, Section 1293.2 “only encompasses those actions which have reached a final determination.” (Green v. Mt. Diablo Hospital Dist. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 63, 77.) Moving Defendants’ request for costs is premature.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] The Court overrules Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the Velarde declaration.

[2] The Court overrules Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the Guha declaration.