Home-Owners Insurance Company v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan et al

Filing 14

ORDER on Motions to Dismiss (ECF # 5 & # 8 ). ( Fourth Amended Complaint due by 3/7/2017, Defendants Response to Amended Complaint due by 3/21/2017). Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Home-Owners Insurance Company,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-13977
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF ## 5 & 8)
On October 19, 2016, Plaintiff Home-Owners Insurance Company
(“Plaintiff”) filed a third amended complaint (TAC) in Oakland County Circuit
Court against Defendants Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”),
Asplundh Tree Expert Company (“Asplundh”), Asplundh Tree Expert Company
Health Benefit and Premium Payment Plan (the “Plan”), Independence Blue Cross
(“Independence”), and Independence Administrators (the “Administrators”). (See
State Court Complaint, ECF #1-2 at 2, Pg. ID 10.)

On November 9, 2016,

Defendants removed the case to this Court. (See Notice of Removal, ECF #1 at 1,
Pg. ID 1.)
There are now two separate motions to dismiss before the Court. First, on
November 16, 2016, Defendants Asplundh, the Plan, Independence, and the
Administrators, collectively, moved to dismiss the claims in the TAC directed at

1

them (the “Collective Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #5.) Second, on November
23, 2016, Defendant BCBSM separately moved to dismiss the claims in the TAC
against it (the “BCBSM Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF # 8.)
The Court held a hearing on the motions on February 21, 2017. For the
reasons explained on the record at the hearing:
The Collective Motion to Dismiss (ECF #5) is GRANTED. The claims
against Defendants Asplundh, the Plan, Independence, and the
Administrators are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The BCBSM Motion to Dismiss (ECF #8) is GRANTED. The claims
against BCBSM are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff
shall not direct any discovery towards BCBSM without further order of the
Court.
Plaintiff shall file a Fourth Amended Complaint by March 7, 2017. The
Fourth Amended Complaint should not include claims against BCBSM.
Defendants shall respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint by March 21,
2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 23, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 23, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Karri Sandusky (in the absence of Holly A. Monda)
Case Manager
[phone]
2