PremierTox 2.0, Inc. v. Coventry Health and Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 7/6/2016. cc: Counsel(CDR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-00127-GNS-HBB
PREMIERTOX 2.0, INC.
PLAINTIFF
v.
COVENTRY HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE CO., et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Alter,
Amend, or Vacate the Court’s Previous Judgment (DN 30). The motion has been fully briefed
and is ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action is brought to recover for damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff,
PremierTox 2.0, Inc. (“PremierTox”) as a result of Defendants Coventry Health and Life
Insurance Co. (“Coventry”) and CoventryCares of Kentucky’s (“CoventryCares”) breach of
contract requiring Coventry to pay Plaintiff for healthcare services rendered to Coventry
members through a provider agreement. (Am. Compl. ¶ 22, DN 1-3). Plaintiff has argued
throughout its various motions that Coventry and CoventryCares are distinct legal entities, while
Coventry argues CoventryCares is simply a Medicaid “product” of Coventry, sold in the state of
Kentucky. (Def.’s Partial Mot. to Dismiss 1, DN 16). The Court denied PremierTox’s Motion to
Remand and granted Coventry’s Partial Motion to Dismiss on April 18, 2016. (Order, DN 27).
PremierTox now petitions the Court to reconsider this decision.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Motions to alter or amend judgments are typically granted “for one of three reasons: (1)
[a]n intervening change of controlling law; (2) [e]vidence not previously available has become
available; or (3) [i]t is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” W.
Ky. Royalty Tr. v. Armstrong Coal Reserves, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-00114-M, 2013 WL 4500189, at
*1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 21, 2013) (citation omitted).
See also GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l
Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) is not intended to “relitigate issues
previously considered or to submit evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could
have been submitted before.” United States v. Abernathy, No. 08-20103, 2009 WL 55011, at *1
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 7, 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
See also
Browning v. Pennerton, No. 7:08-CV-88-KKC, 2008 WL 4791491, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 24,
2008) (“[A] motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments . . . .” (citation
omitted)); Elec. Ins. Co. v. Freudenberg-Nok, Gen. P’ship, 487 F. Supp. 2d 894, 902 (W.D. Ky.
2007) (“Such motions are not an opportunity for the losing party to offer additional arguments in
support of its position.” (citation omitted)).
Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend “are
extraordinary and sparingly granted.” Marshall v. Johnson, No. 3:07-CV-171-H, 2007 WL
1175046, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 19, 2007) (citation omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
PremierTox brings its motion for reconsideration and to alter, amend or vacate to
challenge the Court’s order granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and its denial of
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Pl’s Motion for Reconsideration & Alter, Amend, or Vacate the
Court’s Previous Judgment, DN 30 [hereinafter Pl.’s Mot.]). PremierTox re-styles arguments
previously considered and raises new arguments that could have been presented in its response to
2
Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. Neither form of argument is appropriate on a motion to
reconsider. Abernathy, 2009 WL 55011, at *1.
PremierTox argues that the issue of CoventryCare’s citizenship, or lack thereof, should
not have been dealt with until additional discovery was conducted. (Pl.’s Mot. 2). PremierTox
forgets, however, that it has the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. RMI Titanium Co.
v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir. 1996). Unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
the Court need not assume all facts alleged to be true simply because they are stated in
PremierTox’s complaint. Id. Therefore, the Court properly denied PremierTox’s motion to
remand.
PremierTox further argues that since Coventry did not file an answer prior to the Court’s
decision, the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss was pre-mature.1 (Pl.’s Mot. 3). To the
extent such an argument had merit, which it does not, Coventry has now filed an answer and the
Court’s decision remains unchanged. (Answer, DN 31). The remainder of PremierTox’s motion
simply attempts to reinforce the same arguments which this Court has already addressed in its
previous order or assert new arguments which could have been addressed in its original motion.
The Court declines to address these arguments as this is an improper use of a Rule 59(e) motion.
Abernathy, 2009 WL 55011, at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). The fact
remains that PremierTox’s claims which attempt to re-paint its breach of contract claims with the
different brush of inapplicable laws were properly dismissed. For these reasons, the Court
declines to grant the extraordinary measure of altering, amending, or vacating its previous
judgment.
The Court notes that the Court’s Order granted PremierTox leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint. (Order 4). PremierTox sought minimal, non-substantive changes to its Complaint
which had no effect on the Court’s order. (Pl.’s Mot. to File Second Am. Compl. 1, DN 24).
1
3
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (DN 30) is DENIED.
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
July 6, 2016
cc:
counsel of record
4
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?