Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC et al v. HCA Inc. et al

Filing 219

ORDER Granting Dismissed Defendants' Colorado Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, Inc., Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc, d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado, UnitedHealthcare of Colorado, Inc., Audubon Ambul atory Surgical Center, LLC, and Aetna, Inc. Motion for Stay and Construing Notice as Objection. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS that portion of the Motion, and the Dismissed Defendants deadline to file their answer to the Second Amended Compla int shall be stayed pending the resolution of the Objection. As the Court has construed the remaining arguments in the Motion as an Objection to the Magistrate Judges Order, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file any response to the Objection on or before September 3, 2014, pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2). The Dismissed Defendants shall file any Reply on or before September 10, 2014, by Judge William J. Martinez on 8/21/2014. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-3012-WJM-BNB
KISSING CAMELS SURGERY CENTER, LLC,
CHERRY CREEK SURGERY CENTER, LLC,
ARAPAHOE SURGERY CENTER, LLC, and
HAMPDEN SURGERY CENTER, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTURA HEALTH CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY
AND CONSTRUING NOTICE AS OBJECTION

This matter is before the Court on a filing by former Defendants Colorado
Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, Inc., Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical
Service, Inc, d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado, UnitedHealthcare
of Colorado, Inc., Audubon Ambulatory Surgical Center, LLC, and Aetna, Inc.
(collectively “Dismissed Defendants”) entitled “Dismissed Defendants’ Notice Regarding
Effect of Magistrate Judge’s Order, or in the Alternative, Objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s Order, and Protective Motion for Stay of Deadline to Respond to Second
Amended Complaint” (“Motion”). (ECF No. 218.)
The Dismissed Defendants’ Motion challenges an order by U.S. Magistrate
Judge Boyd N. Boland granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend their complaint
(“Magistrate Judge’s Order”). The Magistrate Judge’s Order, issued on August 12,

2014, found that Plaintiffs had met the standards of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15
and 16, and had shown good cause to extend the deadline in the Scheduling Order for
amendment of pleadings and to permit the proposed amendment of the complaint.
(ECF No. 212.) Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint reinstates their claims against
the Dismissed Defendants. (See ECF No. 213.) The Dismissed Defendants now
contend that they were dismissed from this action with prejudice and are not subject to
reinstatement as defendants. (See ECF No. 218 at 2-4.)
However, the Dismissed Defendants’ filing is not structured as a motion or even
as an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. Instead, it takes the form of a notice of
the Dismissed Defendants’ legal position (which is directly contrary to that expressed in
the Magistrate Judge’s Order), an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, a request
for a stay of the deadline to file an answer pending the resolution of the Motion, and an
alternative unopposed request for a 30-day extension of time to file an answer. (Id. at
6.) This awkward, confused and confusing filing, with its multiplicative requests,
contravenes both this Court’s Revised Practice Standard III.B. (“All requests for the
Court to take any action . . . must be contained in a separate, written motion”), and this
District’s Local Rule D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1(c) (a motion “shall be made in a separate
paper.”). While this alone suffices to permit the Court to strike the Motion, the
Dismissed Defendants have also inexplicably chosen to compound their requests for
relief under the title of “Notice”, which fails to indicate any request for relief whatsover.
However, in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, the Court will not
strike the Motion. Instead, the Court finds that the Dismissed Defendants’ Motion is
more properly construed as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order pursuant to
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and a separate Motion for Stay of the answer
deadline pending the resolution of the Objection with an alternative Motion for
Extension of Time to Answer.
Based on the dispositive nature of the Dismissed Defendants’ Objection and the
arguments it raises, and in an effort to efficiently cut through the fog created by the
Dismissed Defendants’ filing, the Court finds good cause to stay the Dismissed
Defendants’ answer deadline. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS that portion of the
Motion, and the Dismissed Defendants’ deadline to file their answer to the Second
Amended Complaint shall be stayed pending the resolution of the Objection.
As the Court has construed the remaining arguments in the Motion as an
Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file any
response to the Objection on or before September 3, 2014, pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2).
The Dismissed Defendants shall file any Reply on or before September 10, 2014.
Dated this 21st day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3