NuAxess 2 Inc. v. Turkish Airlines Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-03137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In NuAxess 2 Inc. v. Turkish Airlines Inc., Judge Schofield scheduled defendants’ proposed dismissal motion and denied their request to deny discovery.
NuAxess 2 Inc., Turkish Airlines, Inc., Tiirk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi, and, to the extent relevant to the discovery dispute, InsurZoom.com Brokerage Inc.
What happened
In NuAxess 2 Inc. v. Turkish Airlines Inc., NuAxess responded to Turkish Airlines and Tiirk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi’s planned motion to dismiss its amended complaint. NuAxess alleged that the defendants received health-plan services but did not pay its invoices.
NuAxess argued that its allegations supported contract and quasi-contract claims even though it did not have a signed agreement. It also argued that discovery was needed to determine whether payments to InsurZoom.com Brokerage Inc. satisfied the defendants’ obligations to NuAxess.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield set deadlines for the defendants’ proposed dismissal motion and related briefing. Judge Schofield denied the defendants’ request to deny discovery; the order did not decide the proposed dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- NuAxess 2 Inc. v. Turkish Airlines Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03137
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
The court order appears at the end of a response letter from NuAxess 2 Inc. The letter responds to a pre-motion letter from Turkish Airlines, Inc. and Tiirk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi, which the letter calls the “THY Defendants.” Those defendants proposed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, directed at NuAxess’s Second Amended Complaint.
NuAxess alleged that about 210 individuals associated as employees with the THY Defendants received services through the NuAxess Health Plan. According to NuAxess’s letter, medical claims totaling $1,318,181.89 and third-party administration costs totaling $585,637.21 were billed to and paid by NuAxess. NuAxess also alleged that it invoiced the THY Defendants $1,428,626.47 for premium payments and received no payment from any payor.
Parties’ Positions
NuAxess argued that these allegations made it plausible that an agreement existed between NuAxess and the THY Defendants and that the THY Defendants breached it by failing to pay. NuAxess said that, if discovery showed no agreement existed, the same facts supported claims based on an implied obligation to pay for benefits received.
The letter also addressed payments that the THY Defendants allegedly made to InsurZoom. NuAxess argued that discovery was needed to determine whether InsurZoom acted as the THY Defendants’ agent and whether payments to InsurZoom satisfied any obligation to NuAxess. NuAxess stated that it had no reason to believe InsurZoom was its agent and that InsurZoom had not appeared or answered the Second Amended Complaint. These were arguments in NuAxess’s response letter, not findings by the court.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the THY Defendants to file any motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum by October 6, 2023. It set October 27, 2023, for NuAxess’s opposition and November 7, 2023, for the defendants’ reply, subject to the court’s individual rules.
The court denied the THY Defendants’ request to deny discovery to NuAxess. The order did not state that the proposed motion to dismiss was granted or denied, and it did not resolve the parties’ underlying contract, quasi-contract, payment, or agency disputes.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.