Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Savin Hill et al
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered.Order on Motions to Dismiss and Second Scheduling Order. The Court ADOPTS IN FULL the 498 Report and Recommendation. Defendants have ten (10) days to file answers to the SAC. They shall answer ev ery paragraph of the SAC except those paragraphs within a count dismissed by the Court. Joint Statement is due by 10/18/2017. The October 12, 2017 conference is rescheduled to October 25, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. 557 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is due by 10/19/2017. (Montes, Mariliz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
SAVIN HILL FAMILY
CHIROPRACTIC, INC., et al.,
Civil Action No. 15-12939-LTS
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
AND SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER
October 11, 2017
1. The Motions to Dismiss
Magistrate Judge Dein issued a Report and Recommendation (#498) on motions to
dismiss (Docket Nos. 331, 334, 336, 337, 339 and 342) the Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”). The Court extended the time for objections which have now been filed. The Court
reviews the objections and the Motions de novo under the applicable Motion to Dismiss
Defendants O’Desky, McGovern, O’Desky, Imonti, Robin and Ronchetti’s Objections
(#518) are OVERRULED and as to these defendants the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation and DENIES their Motion to Dismiss (#331) except as stated in the Report and
Defendants Soto and Asenjo’s objection (#523) to the Report and Recommendation
including the incorporated appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s Order (#498) allowing in part the
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike certain exhibits from their Motion is OVERULED and as to these
defendants the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES their Motion to
Dismiss (#334) except as stated in the Report and Recommendation. 1
Defendants Savin Hill Family Chiropractic, Logan Chiropractic, Metro Coach, Tony
Ramos, and Kenneth Ramos, objection (#524 ) to the Report and Recommendation, pursuant to
the previously articulated standards, is OVERRULED and their Motion to Dismiss (#337) is
DENIED except as stated in the Report and Recommendation.
Defendants Hernandez, Soto, A. Ramos, T. Ramos, Steward and Mendoz Motion to
Dismiss (#336), after consideration under the applicable standard, is DENIED except as stated in
the Report and Recommendation and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
The Motions to Dismiss of Jeffrey Glassman (#339) and the Glassman Firm (#342) are
DENIED, except as stated in the Report and Recommendation, their combined objection (#522 )
OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation ADOPTED.
The objection of the Plaintiffs (#525) to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation suggesting that the SAC failed to state the “victim enterprise” theory of civil
RICO, that Counts I and III of the SAC be dismissed, that Count VIII be dismissed for failure to
In an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed all aspects of this objection (that is both the
objection to the Report and Recommendation and the appeal from the denial of the motion to strike) de
novo in light of the connection between the ruling on the motion to strike and the recommendation on
the motion to dismiss.
plead a breach of contract claim and that Count IX be dismissed for failure to plead intentional
interference with contractual relationships is OVERRULED and the Report and
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Report and Recommendation.
Defendants have ten days to file answers to theSAC. They shall answer every paragraph of the
SAC except those paragraphs within a count dismissed by the Court.
While the parties’ submissions (#526, 546 & 558) identify topics for discovery and, in
one case, possible proposed motion or phasing neither party has filed a proposed discovery
schedule. The parties shall file a joint statement for the Rule 16 Conference addressing all of the
issues ordinarily addressed. The parties shall file one joint statement proposing their joint or
separate positions. This statement shall be filed by October 18, 2017. The October 12, 2017
conference is rescheduled to October 25, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.
Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (#557) is due by October 19,
2017. Defendants may file a reply without further leave of Court provided the reply does not
exceed four pages and is filed by close of business October 23, 2017. Plaintiff may not file a
surreply unless invited by the Court.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge
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?