Chehalem Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care Inc.
Filing
58
ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hubels Findings and Recommendation 53 , DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 15 , and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 19 to the extent that the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff� 39;s class allegations pertaining to the "Injunctive Class," and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 19 as to the "Damages Class," but with leave to renew that challenge after discovery and on a schedule to be proposed to the Court. Signed on 12/15/2009 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (See formal Order, 3-pages) (ecp)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CHEHALEM PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., Plaintiff, v. COVENTRY HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant. BROWN, Judge.
09-CV-320-HU ORDER
Magistrate Judge Dennis James Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation (#53) on September 30, 2009, in which he recommended the Court deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#15) and grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#19). Defendant filed timely Objections to The matter is now before this
the Findings and Recommendation.
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
1 - ORDER
Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-
Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988). In its Objections, Defendant reiterates the arguments contained in its Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss and stated at oral argument. This Court has carefully
considered Defendant's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. As to Defendant's contention that the Magistrate Judge misquoted the terms of the agreement at issue, the Court finds Defendant's contention is without merit. The Magistrate Judge
found the phrase "maximum amount payable" refers only to the amount listed in the fee schedule and then found the agreement at issue expressly distinguishes between the amount charged by a provider and the amount listed in the fee schedule, which is the maximum amount payable under the fee schedule. Thus, the
Magistrate Judge did not misquote the terms of the agreement. Finally, the Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. 2 - ORDER
CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#53), DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#15), and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#19) to the extent that the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's class allegations pertaining to the "Injunctive Class," and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#19) as to the "Damages Class," but with leave to renew that challenge after discovery and on a schedule to be proposed to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of December, 2009.
/s/ Anna J. Brown ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge
3 - ORDER
]]>
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?
