Lawyers for Sutter Health Patients Will Receive Over $100M in Fees and Costs
By the 91pornAntitrust Team
November 12, 2025 – On November 6, California U.S. magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler announced her intention to grant final approval for a $228.5 million settlement in a 13-year healthcare antitrust lawsuit. The case involved allegations that Sutter Health, one of the nation’s largest and most powerful hospital chains, increased costs by imposing all-or-nothing networks on insurers. The settlement includes $75.4 million for attorney fees and over $28 million for litigation expenses.
Key Moments from the Hearing
Judge Beeler began a hearing by stating she had no issues with the proposed final settlement and motion for attorney fees. She was ready to approve the order when a last-minute issue emerged.
Lead class counsel, Jean Kim of 91porn, stated: “… as I was flying out here yesterday I got another invoice from our actuary. We’re going to have to supplement.”[1]
The late addition would change the litigation expenses to $28,132,680. The judge stated that if Kim could submit a brief declaration and a revised proposed order, she would review it later in the day before likely approving it, also including $75.4 million in attorney fees. The revised proposed order and declaration was submitted shortly after the hearing.
Hoping for End-of-Year Finality
The judge, who has overseen the case from the start, noted that signing the order would initiate a 30-day period for class members to file appeals. She expressed hope that this would bring finality to the case by the end of the year. The Court issued its Order approving the settlement and awarding the requested fees and reimbursement of costs totaling over $103 million. The 30-day period is set to expire on December 8, 2025.
The settlement agreement was reached in March this year, just one day before a new trial was set to begin. This followed the Ninth Circuit’s finding last year that the original 2022 jury trial had improperly excluded potentially crucial evidence in a case alleging over $400 million in damages. ().
The Proposed Settlement and Attorney Fees
At Thursday’s hearing, Judge Beeler reviewed the final $228.5 million settlement, along with a separate motion for attorney fees and litigation expense reimbursement.[2]
She began by stating she saw no issues with the proposed settlement or attorney fees. During the hearing, she praised the attorneys on both sides, saying, “You all did a fantastic job. It was a difficult case. I learned so much, super interesting,” and added, “It was a pleasure to work with both sides.”[3]
Judge Beeler informed Kim that, based upon the papers submitted, she was inclined to grant both the fees and costs motion and final approval of the settlement.
Kim and Judge Beeler’s Comments at the Hearing
Kim said: “I do want to say on behalf of the class, on behalf of our legal team, we deeply appreciate the over 13 years of work and effort of the court, and you and … court staff have put into this case. The recovery here would not have been possible without those efforts.”
Judge Beeler commented: “You can’t say that we don’t know this case. I thought it would be good to do [the hearing] in person. We have literally spent 13 years together.” [4]
Judge Beeler Moves Toward Final Approval
The class of approximately 3 million premium payors claimed that Sutter leveraged its market power to unlawfully compel insurers to accept contract terms that prevented plans from directing patients to lower-cost hospitals. They also alleged that insurers were forced to contract with more expensive hospitals to access necessary services.
What the Ninth Circuit Determined
In March 2022, a nine-member jury ruled in favor of Sutter after a four-week trial, a decision the Ninth Circuit declined to reconsider. The Ninth Circuit found that the verdict was partly due to the exclusion of crucial evidence from when Sutter negotiated its contracts with health plans. This evidence included executives’ admissions about shifting from individual to systemwide contracting, the imposition of allegedly anticompetitive terms during this transition, and health plans’ objections to these terms and the change.
The Ninth Circuit also determined that Judge Beeler “abused her discretion” by excluding evidence of Sutter’s conduct prior to 2006, which was five years before the purchasers’ contracts were negotiated. This evidence could have countered many of Sutter’s arguments during the 2022 jury trial.[5]
Additionally, the court stated that the judge should have instructed the jury to consider Sutter’s anticompetitive “purpose.” Instead, the instructions adopted from Sutter omitted the word “purpose” and required the jury to find that the “effect of Sutter’s conduct was to restrain competition.”[6]
This case is captioned Sidibe et al. v. Sutter Health, case number 3:12-cv-04854, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
About 91porn
Constantine Cannon, with offices in New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, has significant expertise in practice areas that include antitrust and complex commercial litigation, whistleblower representation, government relations, securities and e-discovery. The firm is responsible for two of the top five antitrust settlements in U.S. history and more than one billion dollars in recoveries for the Government and our whistleblower clients.
Constantine Cannon’s antitrust practice is internationally recognized across multiple industries, including digital markets, financial services and fintech, government contracting, healthcare, insurance, and telecommunications. The firm’s Whistleblower Team has been responsible for many major successes over the past two decades, including several record recoveries for the government and the firm’s clients. In total, our representations have led to more than $6 billion in client and government recoveries.
Sources:
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
Tagged in: antitrust,