PHI Air Medical, LLC v. New Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior District Judge James A. Parker granting 31 MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega. Related document(s): 31 MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega from this action. (bap)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PHI AIR MEDICAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 18 CV 382 JAP/SCY
NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT
OF INSURANCE,
JOHN G. FRANCHINI, Superintendent of Insurance
in his official capacity, and
JEREMY RODRIQUEZ-ORTEGA, Compliance Officer,
New Mexico Officer of Superintendent of Insurance, Managed
Health Care Bureau, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT JEREMY RODRIGUEZ-ORTEGA
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 21
In the DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT JEREMY
RODRIGUEZ-ORTEGA PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (Motion), the New Mexico
Office of Superintendent of Insurance (the OSI), John G. Franchini, (Superintendent Franchini),
and Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega (Rodriguez-Ortega) (together, Defendants) ask the Court to
dismiss Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega under Rule 21. PHI Air Medical, Inc. (Plaintiff) does not oppose
the Motion. See PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT JEREMY RODRIGUEZ-ORTEGA (Response). The Court will grant the Motion.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received a letter from Defendants’ counsel asking
Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega because “Mr. Rodriquez-Ortega is not a
1
necessary party.” (Resp. at 1.) Plaintiff states that after “informal discussions and
communications between the parties regarding voluntary dismissal of Mr. Rodriquez-Ortega[,]”
Defendants filed the Motion under Rule 21. (Id. at 2.) In its Response, Plaintiff indicates that
now that it has been informed of the legal basis for dismissal, it does not oppose the Motion. (Id.)
In the Motion, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s counsel “did not provide counsel for
Defendants the courtesy of a response” to Defendants’ May 3, 3018 letter. (Mot. at 2.)
Defendants do not discuss whether the parties had informal discussions about dismissing Mr.
Rodriquez-Ortega as Plaintiff asserts. Defendants further contend that their counsel sent an email
on June 15, 2018 requesting that Plaintiff redact patient’s names from the Orders attached to the
Complaint and that Plaintiff voluntarily dismiss Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega as a defendant. (Id.)
Defendants state that Plaintiff did not respond to the June 15, 2018 email. At the July 3, 2018
scheduling conference, Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough asked the parties to confer about
dismissal of Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega and said that Defendants could file a motion to dismiss if no
agreement could be reached. CLERK’S MINUTES (Doc. No. 26). Plaintiff’s local counsel
apparently told Defendants’ counsel that he would confer with Plaintiff’s out-of-state counsel
about dismissing Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega. Defendants represent that “[a]s of the filing of this
motion, no further word has been received from Plaintiff’s counsel.” (Id. at 2–3.) Defendants
then assert that “Plaintiff’s counsels’ silence and refusal to communicate on this issue for nearly
three months” can be interpreted as “opposition to the Motion.” (Id. at 3.)
The Court is troubled by the actions of counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants.
Defendants did not comply with Local Rule 7.1(a) requiring them to “determine whether a
motion is opposed[;]” therefore, the Court may summarily deny the Motion. D.N.M. LR-Civ.
7.1(a). Moreover, it appears that counsel on both sides have acted unprofessionally. Plaintiff’s
2
counsel complain about opposing counsel’s lack of candor in Defendants’ requests to dismiss
Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega, and Defendants’ counsel complains about opposing counsel’s nonresponsiveness to the May 3, 2018 letter and the June 15, 2018 email. More important, neither
side represents that counsel complied with Magistrate Judge Yarbrough’s request to confer
regarding the dismissal of Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega. This Court holds counsel to the highest
professional standards, and at this point, the Court does not look favorably on the position of
either side.
Nevertheless, the Court will grant the Motion on the merits, and the Court will require all
counsel to file affidavits by September 5, 2018 stating that they have read and will comply with
the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico and “A Creed of Professionalism of the New Mexico Bench and Bar.” See D.N.M. LRCiv. 83.9.
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Rodriquez-Ortega under Rule 21 because this action
involves the interpretation of the New Mexico Insurance Code, which Superintendent Franchini
is responsible to enforce. (Mot. at 1.) Rule 21 provides,
Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its
own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may
also sever any claim against a party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
In the COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 1) (Complaint), Plaintiff claims that Superintendent
Franchini has misapplied New Mexico and federal law in a decision prohibiting Plaintiff from
billing patients for the “usual, customary and reasonable charge for out-of-network emergency
Transportation Services” if a “managed health care plan refuses to pay” the bill in full. (Id. ¶ 5.)
3
Plaintiff alleges that Superintendent Franchini is unlawfully “enforcing [New Mexico Insurance
Laws] to prohibit PHI’s ability to balance bill in violation of the preemption provision of the
federal Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1) (the “ADA”).” The ADA provides
that “a State ... may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force
and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier[.]” 49 U.S.C. §
41713(b)(a)(1). Specifically, Plaintiff asks for a judgment declaring that “the Insurance Laws [of
New Mexico] as applied by the OSI Defendants [cannot] prohibit out-of-network air ambulance
providers from Balance Billing patients[.]” (Compl. at p. 11.) Plaintiff also asks for a declaratory
judgment “that the Insurance Laws [of New Mexico], and any other section, rule, or regulation
that OSI attempts to enforce to limit the price or rate for [Plaintiff’s] Transportation Services, are
preempted, inapplicable and unenforceable as they relate to air carriers, like [Plaintiff].” (Id.)
Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to permanently enjoin the OSI Defendants from enforcing such
statutes and regulations against air carriers, like [Plaintiff], that hold a Part 135 Air Carrier
Certificate.” (Id.)
At the relevant time, Mr. Rodriquez-Ortega was a Compliance Officer in the Managed
Health Bureau of the OSI. (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no specific allegation against
Mr. Rodriquez-Ortega, and his only connection with this matter is that his signature appears on a
cover letter sent to Plaintiff with Superintendent Franchini’s Order (attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit C). In that Order, Superintendent Franchini upheld an internal administrative decision by
New Mexico Health Connections that prohibited Plaintiff from billing a patient for the remainder
of the amount charged for Plaintiff’s services that was not covered by the patient’s plan—called
“balance billing.” See Complaint, Ex. C, R.W. v. New Mexico Health Connections, No. 1700023-EXTR-ADMIN, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW (June
4
28, 2017). In the cover letter to Plaintiff, Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega stated, “should you have
questions or concerns about the Order, you may contact me[.]” There is no allegation, however,
that Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega took part in preparing or enforcing that Order or was involved with
any other decision at issue in this case. Defendants maintain that a judgment in this case will
bind Superintendent Franchini and all employees of the OSI; thus, “there is no need to have
Rodriguez-Ortega in this case.” (Mot. at 2.)
“Rule 21 allows the court to dismiss parties ‘on such terms as are just,’ thus granting
considerable discretion to the trial court.” Lenon v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 136 F.3d 1365,
1371 (10th Cir. 1998). Rule 21 is the proper vehicle for dismissing parties when “no relief is
demanded from … or no claim of relief is stated against [them].” Moubry v. Kreb, 58 F.Supp.2d
1041, 1048 (D. Minn. 1999). See also Ravenswood Inv. Co. v. Avalon Correctional Services, 651
F.3d 1219, 1226 (10th Cir. 2011) (remanding case to district court to determine whether nondiverse parties should be dropped under Rule 21 or whether parties are indispensable); and
Waconda ex rel. Estate of Leon v. United States et al., No. Civ. 06-0101 JB/ACT, 2006 WL
4109670, at * 3 (D. N.M. Aug. 28. 2006) (granting motion to dismiss party under Rule 21
because the party “cannot be liable for the activities that occurred before it was created.”).
Because Plaintiff has requested declaratory and injunctive relief only against the OSI and
Superintendent Franchini in his official capacity, it is appropriate to drop Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega
as a party under Rule 21.
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Defendant Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega is dismissed from this action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 21; and
5
2. By September 5, 2018, each attorney who has entered an appearance in this case must
file an affidavit certifying that the attorney has read and will comply with the Local Rules of
Civil Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and “A Creed
of Professionalism of the New Mexico Bench and Bar.”
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?