Opinion
CASE NO. 1:04 CV 1825.
May 23, 2005
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Cleveland Municipal School District's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35). This case arises out of the termination of plaintiff's health insurance. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff, however, is permitted to amend her complaint as set forth herein.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, Stephanie Watson, filed this action against defendants, Ceridian Benefits Services, Inc. and Cleveland Municipal School District, asserting wrongdoing in connection with the termination of her healthcare coverage. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the failure to properly extend healthcare coverage after her employment ended violated both ERISA and COBRA. On February 8, 2005, plaintiff sought leave from this Court to file an amended complaint, which this Court granted on February 14, 2005 and docketed on February 16, 2005. Thereafter, on February 17, 2005, defendant Ceridian filed a motion to dismiss arguing, among other things, that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted because ERISA and COBRA do not apply to publicly sponsored health plans. Although plaintiff's motion for leave to amend was granted, she never actually filed an amended complaint. As a result, during this Court's routine docket check, the amended complaint attached to her motion for leave was filed by the Clerk's Office on February 24, 2005. Thus, the amended complaint was filed one week after Ceridian filed its motion to dismiss. In addition, the parties filed a stipulation with this Court confirming that the amended complaint was filed on February 24, 2005. Prior to the filing of the amended complaint, this Court held a status conference at which plaintiff was informed by defense counsel that the ERISA/COBRA claims were improper in that the plan at issue is sponsored by a governmental entity. However, in the amended complaint, plaintiff again asserts only an ERISA/COBRA claim.
On April 11, 2005, this Court granted Ceridian's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court declined to redraft plaintiff's complaint. At no point in time did plaintiff seek leave to assert her claims under the proper statute. Rather, plaintiff requested that the Court take judicial notice of the existence of the proper statute and apply that statute to the facts asserted. The day after the Court issued its dismissal order, Cleveland School District filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff filed her complaint under the wrong statute. Plaintiff did not move to file a second amended complaint. Nearly four weeks later, Cleveland School District filed its motion for summary judgment in conformity with this Court's scheduling order.
Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, plaintiff argues that her complaint was filed on February 14, 2005, not February 24. As such, plaintiff claims she did not have notice that her complaint was improper until after the amended complaint was filed. Thus, according to plaintiff, the Court erred by concluding that the amended complaint was filed on February 24. Simply put, plaintiff is wrong. The amended complaint was entered on the docket on February 24, as a result of plaintiff's failure to file her own complaint after leave was granted by this Court. Plaintiff, in fact, stipulated to this Court that the amended complaint was filed on February 24. Plaintiff cannot now be heard to argue, without any authority, that the Complaint was somehow filed on February 14.
Plaintiff again asks this Court to redraft her complaint. In the alternative, plaintiff finally asks this Court for leave to amend so that she may assert her claims under the proper statute(s). The Court finds, as it did in the context of Ceridian's motion, that it would be improper for this Court to transform plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss must be granted. The Court, however, finds that a limited leave to amend is appropriate based on the very unique facts of this case.
Upon review of the summary judgment motion filed by Cleveland School District, the Court notes that the majority of the motion presumes that plaintiff in fact filed her complaint under the PHSA. Thus, to the extent plaintiff is permitted to amend her complaint for the sole purpose of asserting her claims under the appropriate statute, defendant will suffer little if any prejudice. This is so because defendant has already expended the time and resources necessary to move for summary judgment as if the complaint asserted a claim under the PHSA. Given that Rule 15(a) mandates that leave to amend shall be "freely given," the Court finds that on the unique facts of this case, plaintiff shall be permitted to amend her complaint for the limited purposes of asserting her claims under the PHSA. To the extent plaintiff is asking for an extension of time to respond to the pending summary judgment motion, the request is denied. CONCLUSION
Obviously, the amendment would apply only as to Cleveland School District in that Ceridian has been dismissed.
Defendant points out that plaintiff's "request" for leave is flawed. For example, it is not filed by motion and it also does not provide any excuse for its delay.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff, however, is given leave to amend her complaint for the limited purpose of asserting her claims under the appropriate statute. Any such amendment must be filed within five days of entry of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.