PREMIER HEALTH CENTER, P.C. et al v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP et al

Filing 205

OPINION AND ORDER granting 117 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiffs shall file and serve the amended pleading within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 3/28/2013. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
PREMIER HEALTH CENTER, P.C.,
et al.
Civil No. 11-425-ES-SCM
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT

v.
UNITED HEALTH GROUP, et al.,

[D.E. 117]

Defendants.

This

matter

having

come

before

the

Court

by

way

of

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
[Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 117].

Defendants have advised the Court

by way of written submission dated June 26, 2012, [D.E. 125]
that they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion.1

1

In their June 26, 2012 submission to the Court Defendants do
not oppose the instant motion. However, Defendants assert that
plaintiff Judson G. Sprandel, II, D.C (“Dr. Sprandel”) should
not be allowed to participate in the instant action as a
plaintiff because his claims have been previously dismissed by
the Court pursuant to an arbitration clause. Defendants further
submit that Dr. Sprandel should not be allowed to participate as
a plaintiff unless and until he successfully petitions this
Court for reconsideration of its Order compelling him to
arbitrate.
[See D.E. 125, Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs
Motion to File Amended Complaint “Df. Rsp.”)]. Plaintiffs
counter argue that Dr. Sprandel was compelled to arbitration
based on unclear and/or erroneous averments in the original
Complaint that have been clarified in the Second Amended
Complaint.
[See D.E. 129, Plaintiffs’’ Reply (“Pl. Reply”)].
Therefore, according Plaintiffs, Dr. Sprandel should be allowed
1

The

motion

considered

is

therefore

Plaintiffs’

uncontested.

submission,

The

Federal

Court

Rule

of

having
Civil

Procedure 15, and the case law governing motions to amend the
pleadings; and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 28th day of March, 2013
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion [D.E. No. 117] for leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint is granted.

Plaintiffs shall

file and serve the amended pleading within the time provided by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
s/ Steven C. Mannion
HONORABLE STEVEN C. MANNION
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3/28/2013 4:19:18 PM

Date: March 28, 2013

to proceed as a plaintiff under the Second Amended Complaint.
Id. It is the view of the Court that the instant Motion should
be granted with Dr. Sprandel being allowed to proceed as a
plaintiff. The question of whether Dr. Sprandel was or was not,
during the relevant time period an in-network provider (making
him subject to arbitration) or an out-of-network provider is a
question of fact that the parties may going forward through
Motions, if necessary. For the purposes of this Motion, the
Court is satisfied, based on Plaintiffs’ averments as set forth
in their moving brief [see D.E. 117-1, Plaintiffs’ Moving Brief
(“Pl. Br.”), p. 3] that Dr. Sprandel’s status was made clear via
documents produced by Defendant United Health Group during
discovery thereby justifying granting leave to amend pursuant to
Rule 15 (the Court also notes that Defendants did not argue
otherwise in their response).
In addition, pending before the
Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [D.E. 187].
Therefore, because the Court and the parties all have an
interest in the instant matter proceeding forward on the merits,
the Court is inclined to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion and allow the
proposed Second Amended Complaint to be filed as captioned.
2