Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-2392-G.
October 29, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the defendant Epoch Group, L.C. ("Epoch") for reconsideration of this court's August 18, 2004 order denying Epoch's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for leave to file an additional motion to dismiss ("Motion for Reconsideration"). For the reasons stated below, Epoch's motion for reconsideration is denied, and Epoch's motion for leave to file an additional motion to dismiss is also denied.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves a breach of contract claim asserted by the plaintiffs Baylor University Medical Center, Our Children's House at Baylor, Baylor Medical Center at Grapevine, Baylor Medical Center — Irving, and Baylor All Saints Medical (collectively, "Baylor" or "the plaintiffs") against Epoch to recover for medical services Baylor provided to Efrain Delgado and Albertina Delgado (the "Delgados"). See Defendant's Brief in Support of Third Motion to Dismiss/For Summary Judgment ("Motion to Dismiss") at 3, 4. Epoch, which serves as the "Claims Supervisor for the Plan," id. at 3, has not paid Baylor for medical services rendered to the Delgados. See id. at 5; see also Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Response to Epoch's Third Motion to Dismiss/For Summary Judgment ("Response to Motion to Dismiss") at 3; Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 4, 11-15.
For a more detailed discussion of the factual background of this action and the relationship between the parties in the action see this court's August 18, 2004 Memorandum Order ("August 18 Order") at 1-5.
On August 18, 2004 this court denied Epoch's third motion to dismiss the claims asserted by Baylor. See generally August 18 Order. The August 18 Order determined, among other things, that Baylor's breach of contract claim was not completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. August 18 Order at 18-20. Epoch now seeks reconsideration of the court's denial of Epoch's motion to dismiss, as it relates to the issue of complete ERISA preemption or, in the alternative, leave to file another motion to dismiss reasserting its ERISA preemption argument. See generally Motion for Reconsideration.
II. ANALYSIS A. Motion for Reconsideration
Epoch asserts that, in determining its motion to dismiss, this court failed to consider the United States Supreme Court's recent opinion in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2488 (2004). Epoch cites Davila in support of its argument that Baylor's breach of contract claim is completely preempted by ERISA. Motion for Reconsideration at 3. According to Epoch, this court "committed a manifest error of law" in the August 18 Order because the United States Supreme Court overruled the Fifth Circuit precedent used by this court in determining its motion to dismiss. Id. at 4.In Davila, the Court held that claims made under the Texas Health Care Liability Act by a participant in, and a beneficiary under, health care plans governed by ERISA were completely preempted by ERISA. Davila, 124 S.Ct. at 2492-2493. While Davila did reverse a Fifth Circuit decision, it can hardly be said to have overruled all the Fifth Circuit precedent cited in this court's August 18 Order.
In the August 18 Order, this court relied on Memorial Hospital System v. Northbrook Life Insurance Company, 904 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1990), in which the Fifth Circuit provided guidance for determining whether a plaintiff's state law cause of action was completely preempted by ERISA. August 18 Order at 15. Davila never addressed the validity of the two part test set forth by the Fifth Circuit in Memorial Hospital System, nor did the Fifth Circuit rely on Memorial in making the decision which Davila reversed. See generally Davila, 124 S.Ct. 2488; Roark v. Humana, Inc., 307 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2002), rev'd sub nom. Davila, 124 S.Ct. 2488 (2004). Moreover, this court determined, in its August 18 order, that Baylor's breach of contract claims were not preempted by ERISA because they "do not directly affect or modify the relationship between Van Enterprises and its plan participants or beneficiaries, including the Delgados." August 18 Order at 19-20 (citing Memorial Hospital System, 904 F.2d at 248-50). Additionally, this court observed that "Baylor `does not even have independent standing to seek redress under ERISA.'" Id. (citing Memorial Hospital System, 904 F.2d at 249).
As noted by Epoch, Davila addressed the complete preemption by ERISA of claims made by a plan participant and beneficiary. Davila, 124 S.Ct. at 2493; Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Epoch's Third Motion to Dismiss/For Summary Judgment and Brief in Support ("Epoch's Reply") at 3 n. 1. The statutory provision that authorizes civil actions under ERISA provides, in relevant part, that "[a] civil action may be brought — (1) by a participant or beneficiary. . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 1132(a). In Davila, the Court stated that this provision "is relatively straightforward." Davila, 124 S.Ct. at 2496. Moreover, the Court recognized that Davila addressed only claims by a participant and a beneficiary regarding the "denials of coverage promised under the terms of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans." Id. at 2497. In the August 18 Order, this court pointed out that Baylor is seeking to enforce a contract as a third party, not as a beneficiary, participant, or assignee; in other words, "Baylor is suing on its own behalf as an independent creditor — not on behalf of its patients, the Delgados." August 18 Order at 20. The court did not err by failing to include in its August 18 order an analysis of Davila, as Davila is — and was on August 18, 2004 — distinguishable from this case.
B. Motion for Leave
Epoch also seeks leave from the court to file its fourth motion to dismiss Baylor's claims against it. Motion for Reconsideration at 4. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave should be given when justice so requires. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). However, it is in the court's discretion to grant or deny leave to amend. Goldstein v. MCI Worldcom, 340 F.3d 238, 254 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has held that a motion to dismiss is not a "pleading" for purposes of Rule 15. Albany Insurance Company v. Almacenadora Somex, S.A., 5 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the "bias in favor of granting leave to amend," Goldstein, 340 F.3d at 254, is not applicable to a request for leave to amend a motion to dismiss.
In any event, the court has previously considered Epoch's ERISA-preemption argument and rejected it. See generally August 18 Order. The argument and authorities on which Epoch bases the instant motions were laid out in its reply brief and considered by this court prior to its decision. See generally Epoch's Reply; August 18 Order. Allowing a party to simply reassert grounds for dismissal that have already been considered and denied would waste judicial resources and cause hardship to the adverse party. Therefore, Epoch's motion for leave to file an additional motion to dismiss is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Epoch's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Additionally, Epoch's motion for leave to file an additional motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.