MED-X GLOBAL, LLC v. WORLDWIDE INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC (T/N GEOBLUE) et al

RESPONSE in Support

D.N.J.March 28, 2019

Reed Smith LLP Princeton Forrestal Village 136 Main Street - Suite 250 Princeton, NJ 08540-7839 +1 609 987 0050 Fax +1 609 951 0824 reedsmith.com David G. Murphy Direct Phone: +1 609 514 5947 Email: dmurphy@reedsmith.com ABU DHABI  ATHENS  AUSTIN  BEIJING  CENTURY CITY  CHICAGO  DUBAI  FRANKFURT  HONG KONG  HOUSTON  KAZAKHSTAN  LONDON  LOS ANGELES  MIAMI  MUNICH NEW YORK  PARIS  PHILADELPHIA  PITTSBURGH  PRINCETON  RICHMOND  SAN FRANCISCO  SHANGHAI  SILICON VALLEY  SINGAPORE  TYSONS  WASHINGTON, D.C.  WILMINGTON Diane A. Bettino Office Administrative Partner  A Limited Liability Partnership formed in the State of Delaware March 28, 2019 Via ECF Hon. Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J. Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse 402 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08608 Re: Med-X Global, LLC v. Worldwide Insurance Services, LLC, et al. Docket No. 3:17-cv-11742-PGS-TJB Dear Judge Sheridan: Defendant Health Care Service Corporation (named as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas) (“HCSC”), by and through its attorneys, respectfully submits this letter reply in support of its motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 146) the Second Amended Complaint.1 As a threshold matter, Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition to HCSC’s motion to dismiss and the motion to dismiss filed by the Becker Defendants (“Opposition”). (Dkt. No. 173.) So as not to repeat arguments for the sake of judicial economy, HCSC joins the Becker Defendants’ reply brief (Dkt. No. 176.) in full and incorporates it as if fully set forth herein. The arguments in the Becker Defendants’ reply brief apply equally to HCSC and demonstrate that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate as to all remaining defendants. HCSC replies separately to emphasize that Plaintiff’s Opposition fails entirely to address the central point in HCSC’s motion to dismiss: that Plaintiff alleged no new or additional facts related to HCSC (or any defendant other than GeoBlue, who has settled) in the Second Amended Complaint. Like the prior complaint, the Second Amended Complaint contains no allegations of conduct by HCSC. Accordingly, Count I of the Second Amended Complaint (the only Count asserted against HCSC) fails for the same reasons that the First Verified Amended Complaint failed and was dismissed by this Court on April 25, 2018. (Dkt. No. 117.) As noted in HCSC’s opening brief, Med-X’s current allegations in Count I are an exact repeat of the allegations that this Court already dismissed on April 25, 2018. As the Becker Defendants’ reply accurately highlights, Plaintiff’s opposition ignores, among other things, the shortcomings of the Second Amended Complaint, this Court’s Order dismissing the First Amended Complaint, and the law of the case doctrine. Plaintiff’s Opposition is nothing more than a 1 Since the filing of the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has dismissed with prejudice Highmark Inc. (named as Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield) and Blue Cross Blue Shield Delaware Inc. (named as Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield Delaware). Case 3:17-cv-11742-PGS-TJB Document 177 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 981 Hon. Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J. March 28, 2019 Page 2 colorful but ultimately hollow attempt to re-litigate what this Court already decided in dismissing the First Amended Complaint. In light of Plaintiff’s brazen failure to allege any new or additional facts applicable to the claim asserted against HCSC, the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice as to HCSC and award such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, /s/ David G. Murphy David G. Murphy Reed Smith LLP cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) Case 3:17-cv-11742-PGS-TJB Document 177 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 982