Maple Manor Rehab Center of Novi, Inc. et al v. Travelers Insurance Company
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS 22 AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 24 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MAPLE MANOR REHAB CENTER OF
NOVI, INC., ET AL.,
Case No. 17-cv-10695
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 
AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and Defendant’s
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff moves to dismiss this case
without prejudice. Defendant moves for summary judgment. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and
deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as moot.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2015, Mr. John Bourdage was involved in a car accident and sustained
physical injuries. Dkt. No. 1-2, at 6 (Pg. ID 10). The accident made Mr. Bourdage
eligible to receive no-fault insurance benefits. Id. Mr. Bourdage was a patient of
the Plaintiffs. Id. Defendant has received medical bills from Plaintiffs but has not
paid all of the charges. Id. at 7 (Pg. ID 11). In February of 2017, Plaintiffs filed a
complaint against Defendant in Wayne County Circuit Court. See Dkt. No. 1, pg. 1
(Pg. ID 1). Defendant removed the case to this Court on March 3, 2017. See Dkt.
No. 1. Defendant then moved for summary judgment on May 31, 2017. Dkt. No.
12. On May 25, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court decided Covenant Medical
Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, which held that
health care providers no longer had a right to file a separate cause of action to
recover the cost of the services they provided. 895 N.W.2d 490, 504–05 (Mich.
2017). Based on that decision, the Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings
on June 13, 2017 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Dkt. No. 14. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs could not bring a cause of action
because they are healthcare providers. See Dkt. No. 21, pg. 3 (Pg. ID 181).
This Court denied the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings because Mr.
Bourdage could assign his claim to Plaintiffs, which would allow Plaintiffs to bring
the claim. Dkt. No. 21, pg. 4 (Pg. ID 182). The Court then denied the motion for
summary judgment as moot. Id.
Mr. Bourdage did not assign his claim to Plaintiffs, and he instead brought a
lawsuit in Washtenaw County Circuit Court against Defendant. Dkt. No. 22, pg. 3
(Pg. ID 186). Plaintiffs’ lawyer began representing Mr. Bourdage in his
Washtenaw County Circuit Court claim on July 28, 2017. Id. Therefore, Plaintiffs’
claims will now be presented in the Bourdage case. Id. Plaintiffs were the first
party to file a motion in the present proceeding. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss
requesting this Court to dismiss the action without prejudice because their case will
be presented in the Bourdage case. Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiffs requested a dismissal
without prejudice so Defendants cannot use this Court’s dismissal in the Bourdage
case to claim that this Court already decided Plaintiffs’ claim on the merits. Dkt.
No. 22, pg. 3 (Pg. ID 186). Defendants responded, requesting that this Court
dismiss the action with prejudice. Dkt. No. 27. On September 6, 2017, Defendants
also filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted pursuant to the Covenant decision. Dkt. No. 24.
Plaintiffs responded by referencing their earlier Motion to Dismiss, stating that this
Court should dismiss without prejudice so Plaintiffs can pursue their claims in Mr.
Bourdage’s case. Dkt. No. 26, pg. 2 (Pg. ID 209).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss. The
court will dismiss a claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) governs
summary judgment. “Summary judgment shall be granted if there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Cehrs v. Ne. Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775, 779
(6th Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted).
Motion to Dismiss
Because Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Dismiss first, the Court will consider
it first. Plaintiffs request this Court dismiss their claim without prejudice.
Defendants maintain the position that the claim should be dismissed with prejudice
because “[a] dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) is a ‘judgment on the merits,’ and is therefore done with
prejudice.” Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.3d 514, 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Federal Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 3699 n.3 (1981)). This Court is
not dismissing Plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim, so the dismissal is not a
judgment on the merits. This Court is dismissing the action because Plaintiffs’
matter is now pending before another court. Mr. Bourdage did not assign his claim
to Plaintiffs. Instead, he filed his own claim in Washtenaw County Circuit Court.
Plaintiff’s claims will be considered along with his claims because Mr. Bourdage
and Plaintiffs have the same lawyer. In conclusion, this Court will dismiss the
current action without prejudice to allow the Washtenaw County Circuit Court to
consider the Plaintiffs’ issues, which are in Mr. Bourdage’s case.
Motion for Summary Judgment
Because this Court is granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss, the Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment is moot. Accordingly, this Court denies
Defendant’s Motion as moot.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice and deny Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
Dated: October 24, 2017
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?