Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-09183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Judge Nathan ordered plaintiffs to say whether they will amend their complaint or rely on it.
The plaintiffs, Emergency Physician Services of New York and the other plaintiffs listed in the caption, and the defendants who filed the motions to dismiss.
What happened
Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. concerns defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, filed on January 25, 2021.
The court required the plaintiffs to notify the court and defendants by February 8 whether they would amend their complaint and when, or rely on the existing complaint. The court warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could waive the opportunity to use an amendment to fix identified defects.
Judge Alison J. Nathan stated that, if the plaintiffs amend, defendants may answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on their original motion. The order did not decide the motions to dismiss or the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09183
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 28, 2021
Background
On January 25, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The order concerns the plaintiffs’ required response to those motions and does not resolve them.
Required Notice
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the plaintiffs had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by February 8, 2021, whether they intended to file an amended pleading and when they would do so, or whether they would rely on the complaint being challenged.
The court warned that declining to amend in a timely response to a fully briefed argument in the defendants’ motions might waive the plaintiffs’ ability to use the amendment process to cure defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. The order cited a prior appellate decision concerning circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or futility.
If Plaintiffs Amend
The defendants could then file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they rely on their initially filed motions. The order also stated that it did not change the deadlines to amend, answer, or move provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.
Disposition and Effect
This was a procedural order directing the plaintiffs to state how they would proceed; it did not grant or deny the motions to dismiss and did not decide the underlying claims. The order affected the plaintiffs’ pleading choice and set out the defendants’ possible responses if an amended pleading were filed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.