-JCL Cramer v. Ingenix et al, No. 9:2010cv00077 - Document 36 (D. Mont. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full - 15 Findings and Recommendations, granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ingenix as to dismissal of the state law claims advanced in Cramer's now superceded complaint.. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 10/1/2010. (BAW, )

Download PDF
-JCL Cramer v. Ingenix et al Doc. 36 FILED OCT 0 t 2010 PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK By "oe;:;:PUTY:­=­:=:c\':­::E""RK""'.Mt""S""SOUlA""""'' ' '- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION STEFANIE CRAMER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. JOHN ALDEN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a ASSURANT HEAL Il, INGENIX, INC., and T JOHN DOES 1­5, Defendants. CV 1O­77­M­DWM­JCL ORDER ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­) This action arises from a Complaint filed in Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, in June 2010, which made claims under Montana law for breach of contract, constructive fraud, violation of Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeking declaratory relief as to the parties' rights and ­1- Dockets.Justia.com obligations under insurance coverage by Defendant John Alden Life Insurance d/b/a Assurant Health (John Alden), and the legality of Defendants' conduct in asserting a right of subrogation. The case was removed to this Court on July 15, 2010. Defendants Ingenix, Inc. and John Alden then filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 23,2010 with supporting brief. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendation (dkt #15) in this case on August 25,2010. Judge Lynch determined that the Plaintiff would be permitted to file an amended complaint to state a claim for relief under ERISA and that the claims for declaratory relief were not moot. An amended complaint was filed in this matter on August 31, 20 I O. The parties did not timely object and so have waived the right to de novo review ofthe record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). This Court reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422,427 (9th Cir. 2000). I can find no clear error with Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (dkt # IS) are adopted in full. -2- IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (elkt #6) is GRANIED as to dismissal ofthe state law claims advanced in Cramer's now superceded Complaint. Dated this Iif"'day of October, 2010. -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.