MOORE EYE CARE, P.C. et al v. SOFTCARE SOLUTIONS, INC. et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT MTBC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; MOORE EYE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS DENIED AS TO COUNTS I-III OF MTBC'S COUNTERCLAIM AND GRANTED AS TO COUNT IV A ND V OF MTBC'S COUNTERCLAIM, WHICH ARE DISMISSED; AND CHARTCARE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS DENIED AS TO COUNT I OF MTBC'S CROSS-CLAIM AND GRANTED AS TO COUNT II OF MTBC'S CROSS-CLAIM, WHICH IS DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 3/7/19. 3/8/19 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MOORE EYE CARE, P.C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
CHARTCARE SOLUTIONS INC., et al., :
Defendants.
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-cv-05290

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of March 2019, upon consideration of the motions for summary
judgment filed by Moore Eye Care, P.C. and Eye Services, MSO d/b/a Moore Eye Institute
(Moore Eye) [Doc. No. 86], Medical Transcription Billing, Corp. (MTBC) [Doc. No. 88],1 and
ChartCare Solutions, Inc., and the responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. MTBC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;
2. Moore Eye’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED
in part. It is denied as to Counts I–III of MTBC’s counterclaim and granted as to
Count IV and V of MTBC’s counterclaim, which are dismissed; and
3. ChartCare’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in
part. It is denied as to Count I of MTBC’s cross-claim and granted as to Count II of
MTBC’s cross-claim, which is dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
_____________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

1

MTBC filed its summary judgment motion on May 5, 2018, the day after the deadline to file dispositive motions.
MTBC moved for the Court to accept its late-filed motion, asserting that the one-day delay was caused by counsel
underestimating the time required to format the motion and its attachments. [Doc. No. 89]. Given the minimal delay,
which has not prejudiced any party, MTBC’s request is granted and the late-filed motion has been accepted.