MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC
v.
MAIN STREET AMERICA GROUP, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims.
Plaintiffs, alleging assignment of claims from Medicare Advantage Organizations, sued defendants for failing to reimburse conditional payments under t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medicare Secondary Payer Act (Msp Act) cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs disagree with the rationales underlying Defendants’ cited authority, they do not address them here. That is because Plaintiffs have identified additional [exemplar] claims which render Defendants’ arguments moot.” See Response at 4. Plaintiffs explain that they “have detailed certain of these additional [exemplar] claims in a proposed Second Amended Complaint,” and “intend to file their Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, detailing the good cause supporting that amendment, no later than Tuesday, December 8, 2020.” Id. at 5.
Upon review of the docket, Plaintiffs have not filed any motion for leave to amend the complaint to date. Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiffs’ standing is moot, this argument fails. Plaintiffs do not otherwise substantively address Defendants’ standing argument or attempt to distinguish or rebut Defendants’ cited authorities. The Court declines to conduct research or make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf. See Pelfresne v. Vill. of Williams Bay, 917 F. 2d 1017, 1023 (7th Cir. 1990) (“A litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the point. We will not do his research for him.” (internal citations omitted)). Indeed, the Court treats Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the merits of Defendants’ request for dismissal on the basis of standing as a concession that the request is due to be granted. See Guzman v. City of Hialeah, No. 15-23985-CIV-GAYLES, 2016 WL 3763055, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2016) (“A plaintiff who, in her responsive brief, fails to address her obligation to object to a point raised by the defendant implicitly concedes that point.”); see also Chapman v. Abbott Labs., 930 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1325 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2013); Leary v. Infolink Global Corp., No. 12-21339-CIV-MARRA, 2012 WL 6634803, at *3 n.5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2012); Covington v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, No. 08-21894-CIV-SEITZ/OSULLIVAN, 2009 WL 10668916, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2009) (“Plaintiff has tacitly conceded the merits of Defendants’ argument by not responding to it.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Complaint for Damages (Doc. 67) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of standing.
B. The Motion is otherwise DENIED.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2021.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
Ie11 Copies to: Counsel of Record