COHEN, M.D., F.A.C.S. v. QUALCARE, INC. et al
Filing
17
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 12/15/2014. (kas, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
DR. JASON M. COHEN, M.D., F.A.C.S., :
as authorized representative of D.R., as
:
assignee of D.R.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
QUALCARE, INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-5553 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THE PLAINTIFF medical provider brought an action (“First Action”) pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) to recover payment for
medical services provided to a beneficiary (“Services”) of an employee benefit plan
(“Plan”), asserting that the plaintiff: (1) submitted a claim for the Services for $55,334.00;
(2) was paid only $1,939.07 by the Plan; and (3) is entitled to payment from the Plan for
the $53,394.93 that remains unpaid. See No. 13-2487 (D.N.J.). The Court dismissed the
complaint in the First Action because ERISA did not apply, but granted the plaintiff leave
to assert the claims pursuant to state law in a new action in state court. See Cohen v.
Qualcare, Inc., No. 13-2487, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89281, at *1–3 (D.N.J. July 1, 2014).
The defendants — Qualcare, Inc., and Norglen, Inc. — separately appealed from the
dismissal in the First Action. See No. 14-3462 & No. 14-3463 (3d Cir.). Those appeals
remain pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
THE PLAINTIFF then brought a new action relying solely on state law to
recover payment for the Services in state court (“Second Action”). (See dkt. entry no. 1,
Compl.) The defendants argue that ERISA preempts the claims in the Second Action,
and have removed the Second Action. (See dkt. entry no. 1, Notice of Removal at 2–3.)
THE DEFENDANTS now move to stay the Second Action pending the outcome
of the appeals in the First Action. (See dkt. entry no. 6-1, Br. of Norglen, Inc.; dkt. entry
no. 7, Letter of Qualcare, Inc.) The plaintiff argues that ERISA does not preempt the
Second Action, and cross-moves to remand and for an award of costs. (See dkt. entry no.
12-1, Pl. Br.) The Court will not conduct oral argument. See L.Civ.R. 78.1(b).
ERISA does not preempt the Second Action. See Cohen, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
89281, at *2–3 (citing case law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit). The Court thus intends to remand the Second Action. But in view of the
circumstances here, the Court will exercise the “broad discretion” to deny the plaintiff an
award of costs. See Mints v. Educ. Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253, 1260 (3d Cir. 1996).
THE COURT will therefore: (1) grant the part of the cross motion seeking
remand; (2) deny the part of the cross motion seeking an award of costs; (3) deny the
motion to stay; and (4) remand the Second Action. The Court, in denying the motion to
2
stay, does so without prejudice to the defendants to move for the same relief in state court
upon the remand of the Second Action.
THE COURT will issue an appropriate order and judgment.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated: December 15, 2014
3
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?