is in part a procedural right, the right to have the State of California consider certain factors when setting Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. See Orthopaedic Hosp., 103 F.3d at 1500; infra at 1112-13. This is a "procedural right" in the sense that it is a "procedural requirement the disregard of which could impair a separate and concrete interest of” plaintiffs (i.e., Medi-Cal beneficiaries’ interest in receiving equal access to medical care). Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572, 112 S.Ct. 2130. In a case involving a procedural right, the standards of redressability and causation applied in normal standing cases are relaxed. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2003); Hall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir.2001) 76 Cal.App.4th 124, 133, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 15 . The court expresses no opinion as to
holding that nonmutual issue preclusion should not apply against the state government holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive holding that when presented with petitioners claim based upon state and federal law and the state court confined its analysis  to state law aedpa deference does not apply holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions holding that as a matter of state law nonmutual offensive issue preclusion does not apply against the state