Emsurgcare v. Avery Hager

S.D. New York

Emsurgcare v. Avery Hager

DecidedMay 15, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-06181

StatusUnknown

This text of Emsurgcare v. Avery Hager (Emsurgcare v. Avery Hager) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emsurgcare v. Avery Hager, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EMSURGCARE, et al., Plaintiffs, 24-CV-6181 (JPO) -v- ORDER AVERY HAGER, et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc. and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. have attached a copy of the 2018 health benefits plan of which, they allege, Avery Hager was a beneficiary (“the 2018 Plan”). (ECF No. 35-2.) However, to authenticate this document they have provided a sworn declaration by only Defendants’ counsel (see ECF No. 35-1), rather than the sworn declaration of “a custodian or other qualified witness [who] testif[ies] that the document was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and also that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the record.” United States v. Komasa, 767 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). Before this case was transferred to this District from the Central District of California, Defendants filed a declaration sworn by Jane Stalinski, United HealthCare’s “Legal Services Specialist,” who could authenticate such a document. (ECF No. 1-1.) However, Stalinski’s declaration was filed with a 2020 version of the health benefits plan (“the 2020 Plan”), thus creating confusion about whether she authenticated the 2018 Plan or the 2020 Plan. (See ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 26 at 8.) As Defendants’ counsel explained to the Central District of California court: “[W]e recently discovered that, due to a system population error described by Oxford, a later version of the Plan was attached to the Notice of Removal and to my Exhibit A in my Original Declaration.” (ECF No. 21-1.) Defendants Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc. and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. should thus file a declaration properly authenticating the 2018 Plan, similar to the one they filed in the Central District of California sworn by Stalinski, by May 21, 2025. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 15, 2025 New York, New York

United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EMSURGCARE, et al., Plaintiffs, 24-CV-6181 (JPO) -v- ORDER AVERY HAGER, et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc. and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. have attached a copy of the 2018 health benefits plan of which, they allege, Avery Hager was a beneficiary (“the 2018 Plan”). (ECF No. 35-2.) However, to authenticate this document they have provided a sworn declaration by only Defendants’ counsel (see ECF No. 35-1), rather than the sworn declaration of “a custodian or other qualified witness [who] testif[ies] that the document was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and also that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the record.” United States v. Komasa, 767 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). Before this case was transferred to this District from the Central District of California, Defendants filed a declaration sworn by Jane Stalinski, United HealthCare’s “Legal Services Specialist,” who could authenticate such a document. (ECF No. 1-1.) However, Stalinski’s declaration was filed with a 2020 version of the health benefits plan (“the 2020 Plan”), thus creating confusion about whether she authenticated the 2018 Plan or the 2020 Plan. (See ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 26 at 8.) As Defendants’ counsel explained to the Central District of California court: “[W]e recently discovered that, due to a system population error described by Oxford, a later version of the Plan was attached to the Notice of Removal and to my Exhibit A in my Original Declaration.” (ECF No. 21-1.) Defendants Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc. and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. should thus file a declaration properly authenticating the 2018 Plan, similar to the one they filed in the Central District of California sworn by Stalinski, by May 21, 2025. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 15, 2025 New York, New York

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Emsurgcare v. Avery Hager, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emsurgcare-v-avery-hager-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack