Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-09427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rowe v. Aetna, Judge Torres dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), adopting earlier recommendations after plaintiffs missed deadlines.
The dismissal ended Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. and East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C.’s claims against Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company in this action.
What happened
Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company involved claims that Aetna breached an agreement to pay for a surgery. The plaintiffs sought more time and permission to amend their complaint after an earlier related case reached the Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs did not timely respond to an order requiring them to explain why the case should not be dismissed. They later filed a response, a proposed amended complaint, and objections, but their objections to the recommended dismissal were late and did not address the magistrate judge’s reconsideration order.
Judge Analisa Torres adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and reconsideration order and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). She also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-09427
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 25, 2025
Background
Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. and East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C. sued Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company, claiming that Aetna breached an agreement to pay for a surgery. The opinion states that the case was one of more than 30 nearly identical lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
The action had been stayed while the Court of Appeals considered an earlier related proceeding. After that appeal was decided, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang directed the plaintiffs to show cause—meaning explain why the case should not be dismissed—in light of the appellate decision and to explain why further amendment would not be futile. The plaintiffs did not respond by the deadline. Judge Wang then recommended dismissal with prejudice.
Procedural History and Analysis
Three days after the deadline, the plaintiffs filed a response to the show-cause order, a motion for leave to amend, and a motion for an extension of time. Judge Wang treated those filings as a request to reconsider the recommended dismissal and denied reconsideration, concluding that the complaint should be dismissed for the reasons identified in the earlier related proceeding and that the proposed amendments would be futile.
The plaintiffs later filed objections, but they addressed only the recommended dismissal, not the reconsideration order. Judge Torres ruled that the objections were untimely because they were filed after the deadline and that the plaintiffs had neither sought an extension nor explained the delay. She therefore found the objections waived. She also stated that, even if the procedural default were excused, the objections would fail because Judge Wang’s recommendation was not clearly erroneous. Judge Torres likewise found no clear error in the reconsideration order.
Disposition
Judge Torres adopted the report and recommendation and the reconsideration order in their entirety. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.