Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd v. California Physicians’ Service

S.D. Texas

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd v. California Physicians’ Service

DecidedJanuary 30, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-00021

StatusUnknown

This text of Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd v. California Physicians’ Service (Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd v. California Physicians’ Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd v. California Physicians’ Service, (S.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT aoa □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS athan Gensner, Cler CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION .

BAY AREA HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00021 § CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 27). The M&R recommends the following: e Grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; e Deny without prejudice Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II and III for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; e Grant Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint within 21 days after the Court adopts the M&R; e Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the 21-day period, the Court should dismiss this case without prejudice; and e Should Plaintiff file an amended complaint within the 21-day period, the Court should allow Defendant to re-file any Rule 12 motions for dismissal. Id. at 21. Plaintiff filed written objections, (D.E. 28), to which Defendant responded, (D.E. 29). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole

Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).! After considering Plaintiff's objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 28), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 27). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint within 21 days of the date of this order and DENIES as moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 9). Failure to timely amend will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. Should Plaintiff timely file an amended complaint, Defendant is permitted to re-file any Rule 12 motions for dismissal. SO ORDERED.

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. Although the M&R is at the motion to dismiss stage and not summary judgment, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order’; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted).

t | U UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas January$ 149026

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT aoa □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS athan Gensner, Cler CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION .

BAY AREA HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00021 § CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 27). The M&R recommends the following: e Grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; e Deny without prejudice Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II and III for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; e Grant Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint within 21 days after the Court adopts the M&R; e Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the 21-day period, the Court should dismiss this case without prejudice; and e Should Plaintiff file an amended complaint within the 21-day period, the Court should allow Defendant to re-file any Rule 12 motions for dismissal. Id. at 21. Plaintiff filed written objections, (D.E. 28), to which Defendant responded, (D.E. 29). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole

Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).! After considering Plaintiff's objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 28), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 27). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint within 21 days of the date of this order and DENIES as moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 9). Failure to timely amend will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. Should Plaintiff timely file an amended complaint, Defendant is permitted to re-file any Rule 12 motions for dismissal. SO ORDERED.

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. Although the M&R is at the motion to dismiss stage and not summary judgment, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order’; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted).

t | U UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas January$ 149026

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd v. California Physicians’ Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-area-healthcare-group-ltd-v-california-physicians-service-txsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack