Chesterfield Spine Center, LLC v. Healthlink HMO, Inc.

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to withdraw 25 is granted, and plaintiffs motion for remand 12 is withdrawn.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may file a motion for leave toamend its complaint, together with a proposed amended complaint, in lieu ofopposing dismissal by October 2, 2015; however, if plaintiff chooses to file amemorandum in opposition to dismissal it must comply with the requirements setout above. ( Response to Court due by 10/2/2015.) Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/28/15. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHESTERFIELD SPINE CENTER, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HEALTHLINK HMO, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1169 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiff’s motion to withdraw its motion for
remand. Plaintiff now apparently concedes that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under ERISA. For this reason, I will grant plaintiff’s motion to
withdraw the motion for remand. However, defendant also has a pending motion
to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to plead claims under ERISA. Plaintiff’s
response to that motion is due October 2, 2015. In light of plaintiff’s concession
regarding jurisdiction, I would expect plaintiff to seek leave to assert claims under
ERISA. Any such motion, including a proposed amended complaint, should be
filed on October 2, 2015, in lieu of a response to the motion to dismiss. If plaintiff
chooses to oppose dismissal instead of filing an amended complaint, plaintiff’s
opposition shall explain how this Court has subject matter jurisdiction if plaintiff’s
claims are not governed by ERISA.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to withdraw [25] is
granted, and plaintiff’s motion for remand [12] is withdrawn.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may file a motion for leave to
amend its complaint, together with a proposed amended complaint, in lieu of
opposing dismissal by October 2, 2015; however, if plaintiff chooses to file a
memorandum in opposition to dismissal it must comply with the requirements set
out above.

_______________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 28th day of September, 2015.

2