govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-08525-1

1 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
GS LABS, LLC, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
AETNA, INC., et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 
Re: Dkt. No. 60 
 
Defendants’ request for issuance of an order to show cause is DENIED. The prior 
dismissal order explained that “[t]he amended complaint may not add new claims or parties, or 
otherwise change the allegations except to correct the identified deficiencies, absent leave of the 
Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.” (Dkt. No. 54 
(the “Prior Order”) at 11.) Defendants argue that the inclusion of new alleged “schemes” in the 
amended complaint that were not described in the original complaint, along with examples of 
those schemes, exceeds the scope of permitted amendment. However, one of the deficiencies 
identified in the Prior Order was GS’s failure to sufficiently allege the commission of mail and 
wire fraud predicate acts: 
 
Wire or mail fraud consists of the following elements: (1) formation of a scheme 
or artifice to defraud; (2) use of the United States mails or wires, or causing such 
a use, in furtherance of the scheme; and (3) specific intent to deceive or defraud. 
GS does not sufficiently allege that Aetna formed any fraudulent scheme. 
(Id. at 2 (citation and quotation marks omitted).) Thus, the latest scheme allegations are within 
the scope of permitted amendment. 
It does not matter whether all of the schemes alleged in the original complaint “ultimately 
derive[d] from Aetna’s alleged failure to comply with the FFCRA and the CARES Act in 

2 
purported violation of [certain enumerated] representations” and that GS failed to sufficiently 
allege the falsity of those representations. (See id. at 3.) The broader deficiency identified 
concerned a failure to sufficiently allege the commission of predicate acts, and nothing in the 
Prior Order limited GS to addressing only this narrower deficiency in its amended pleading.1 
The parties had previously stipulated to a briefing schedule on a forthcoming motion to 
dismiss, which was vacated after Defendants filed the instant motion. By June 19, 2026, the 
parties shall file a new stipulated briefing schedule for Defendants’ forthcoming motion to 
dismiss. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 12, 2026 
 
 
RITA F. LIN 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 The Court declines to address the alternative request for a sua sponte dismissal based on the 
length of the amended complaint, as that request was raised only in a footnote. (See Dkt. No. 60 
at 4 n.1.) Moreover, a lengthy complaint is not per se impermissible in light of the elements of a 
RICO claim and the requirements of Rule 9(b). This ruling is without prejudice to the argument 
being re-raised in Aetna’s motion to dismiss. 

Passage view · GavelSight