KDCO, Inc et al v. Healthlink, Inc. et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any opposition to the motion for remand 54 shall be filed by no later than August 19, 2016, and any reply brief in support of such motion shall be filed by no later than August 31, 2016. As stated before, all briefs must comply with the page limitations set out in this Court's local rules. No further extensions of time on the motion for remand will be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs will not be required to file any oppos ition to the pending motions to dismiss until the Court issues its ruling on the pending motion for remand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the telephone conference scheduled for August 2, 2016, is cancelled, and the parties are not required to file a j oint briefing schedule as required by my July 29, 2016 Order. The parties should not contact my chambers by telephone unless specifically ordered to do so by this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party objecting to a discretionary, interdi visional transfer of this case to the Southeastern Division shall show cause by August 5, 2016, why this case should not be reassigned or this case shall be reassigned to the Southeastern Division with the consent of all parties. IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED that the following motions for extensions of time are denied as moot: 61 and 63 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions for extensions of time are granted: 59 , 60 , and 62 .. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/1/16. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KDCO, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HEALTHLINK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16 CV 930 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 29, 2016, I set this case for a telephone status conference because
the parties kept improperly contacting my chambers by telephone in an attempt to
force immediate rulings on pending motions. I have now reviewed this case and
the pending motions and find that a telephone conference is unnecessary. Despite
the parties’ flurry of briefing activity and constant barrage of telephone calls to my
chambers, this is a straight-forward case with a straight-forward motion for remand
pending. Are the plaintiffs suing for a breach of their network provider contracts?
If so, then this case is clearly not governed by ERISA, was improvidently
removed, and will be remanded in short order. Or are the plaintiffs seeking to
recover benefits as assignees of patients covered by an ERISA plan? If so, then
this case is clearly governed by ERISA, was properly removed, and will remain
here. These issues are not difficult, and there is nothing urgent or unduly complex

about this case. For this reason, the Court will enter the following briefing
schedule for the motion for remand, and it expects the parties to comply with its
deadlines without contacting my chambers. It should go without saying, but
the parties should not be contacting my chambers by telephone anymore
unless such action is requested by the Court. Finally, after reviewing the
allegations in the petition, it appears that a discretionary transfer to the
Southeastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri may be appropriate as the
healthcare services at issue here were provided in that district.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any opposition to the motion for remand
[54] shall be filed by no later than August 19, 2016, and any reply brief in support
of such motion shall be filed by no later than August 31, 2016. As stated before,
all briefs must comply with the page limitations set out in this Court’s local
rules. No further extensions of time on the motion for remand will be
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs will not be required to file any
opposition to the pending motions to dismiss until the Court issues its ruling on the
pending motion for remand.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the telephone conference scheduled
for August 2, 2016, is cancelled, and the parties are not required to file a joint
2

briefing schedule as required by my July 29, 2016 Order. The parties should
not contact my chambers by telephone unless specifically ordered to do so by
this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party objecting to a
discretionary, interdivisional transfer of this case to the Southeastern Division
shall show cause by August 5, 2016, why this case should not be reassigned or
this case shall be reassigned to the Southeastern Division with the consent of
all parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions for extensions of
time are denied as moot: [61] and [63].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions for extensions of
time are granted: [59], [60], and [62].

_______________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of August, 2016.

3