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

Filing 241

ORDER denying 227 Centuras Motion to Stay Resolution of the Dismissed Defendants Objection, by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/3/2014.(evana, )

Download PDF
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 DENYING CENTURA HEALTH CORPORATION’S MOTION TO STAY RESOLUTION OF DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION This antitrust action is brought by Plaintiffs Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC, Cherry Creek Surgery Center, LLC, Arapahoe Surgery Center, LLC, and Hampden Surgery Center, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”). This matter is before the Court on Defendant Centura Health Corporation’s (“Centura”) Motion to Stay Resolution of the Dismissed Defendants’ Objection (“Motion”). (ECF No. 227.) The “Objection” to which the Motion refers was filed 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”). (ECF No. 218.) The Dismissed Defendants’ Objection challenges an order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (ECF No. 212) which granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend their complaint such that Plaintiffs’ claims against the Dismissed Defendants were reinstated. (Id.) The instant Motion asks the Court to defer ruling on the Dismissed Defendants’ Objection until after issuance of a ruling on Centura’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 229). Centura contends that the interest of judicial economy weighs in favor of deferring ruling on the Objection because, if Centura’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, the Objection would be rendered moot “because the Court will have determined the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.” (ECF No. 227 at 1.) The Dismissed Defendants take no position on the Motion. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, pointing out in their Response that, even if Centura’s Motion for Summary Judgment were granted in full, it would not resolve all of Plaintiffs’ claims against the Dismissed Defendants. (ECF No. 230 at 4.) The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges an anticompetitive conspiracy between Centura, the Dismissed Defendants, and former Defendant HCA-HealthONE LLC. (See ECF No. 213.) If summary judgment were granted in favor of Centura on such conspiracy claims, Plaintiffs could still succeed in proving their claims against some or all of the Dismissed Defendants based on the alleged conspiracy with HCA-HealthONE LLC. Thus, the Dismissed Defendants’ Objection would remain pending even if the Court were to grant the instant Motion and proceed directly to resolving Centura’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The argument that the Objection may be rendered moot is the only argument Centura raises in its Motion for a stay of the ruling on the Dismissed Defendants’ 2 Objection.1 As the Court has rejected this argument, Centura’s Motion to Stay Resolution of the Dismissed Defendants’ Objection (ECF No. 227) is DENIED. Dated this 3rd day of November, 2014. BY THE COURT: __________________________ William J. Martínez United States District Judge 1 In Centura’s Reply in support of the Motion, it emphasizes that its Motion for Summary Judgment was not affected by Plaintiffs’ recent amendments in the Second Amended Complaint, and argues that it merits “a prompt resolution of its summary judgment motion”. (ECF No. 235 at 1.) These statements seem to argue for an expedited ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, but have no bearing on the instant Motion, which asks only for the Court to defer ruling on the Objection. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?