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, )

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