COHEN, M.D., F.A.C.S. et al v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations, and DENYING 6 Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 8/22/17. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

COHEN, M.D., F.A.C.$., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
NEW JERSEY,

Civil Action No. 16-8840

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendant.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jason D. Cohen, M.D., F.A.C.S., and
Professional Orthopedic Associates, P.A.’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to remand this case to New Jersey
state court on the ground that Plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (“ERISA”). D.E. 6. Defendant Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New
Jersey (“Defendant”) opposes this motion. D.E. 11. In response to this motion, on June 29, 2017,
Magistrate James B. Clark filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). D.E. 14. In his R&R,
Judge Clark recommended that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, finding that
Plaintiffs’ claims were completely preempted by ERISA and therefore this Court had subject
matter jurisdiction over this action.1 Id. The parties were given notice that, pursuant to Federal

In addition to the reasons cited by Judge Clark, this Court also analyzed identical arguments in
Cohen v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield ofNew Jersey, No. 15-4525, 2017 WL 685101, at *1
(D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2017). There, the plaintiffs made the same arguments as advanced in this action,

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 71.1 (c)(2), they had fourteen days to file an
objection to Judge Clark’s recommendation. To date, it appears that neither party has objected.
The Court has conducted a review of the record and of Judge Clark’s R&R for clear error,2 and for
good cause shown,
IT IS on this 22nd day of August, 2017,
ORDERED that the R&R filed June 29, 2017 (D.E. 14) is ADOPTED3 and made part of

this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (D.E. 6) is DENIED, and this case shall

remain in this Court.

Q

John Michael Vazqz, ‘U .D.J.

and this Court rejected them, finding the same regulations completely preempted by ERISA. Id.
at *9
2

De novo review is required when an objection is made. 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). However, when no objection is made, the Court reviews a magistrate
judge’s R&R for clear error. McKean v. Co/yin, 150 F. Supp. 3d 406, 409-10 (M.D. Pa. 2015).

The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 2$ U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2