Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC v. Becerra

E.D. North Carolina

Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC v. Becerra

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 29, 2022

Docket7:22-cv-00081

StatusUnknown

This text of Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC v. Becerra (Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC v. Becerra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC v. Becerra, (E.D.N.C. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ‘FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:22-CV-81-D

FIVEPOINTSHEALTHCARE —_ié*d?ys OF NC, LLC d/b/a NATIVE ANGELS ) HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the ) Department of Health and Human Services, ) and CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE, ) Administrator for the Centers for Medicare ) and Medicaid Services, ) ) Defendants. On May 23, 2022, Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC d/b/a Native Angels Home Health Agency, Inc. (“Native Angels” or plaintiff) filed a complaint challenging two decisions by the Medicare Appeal Council concerning Medicare reimbursement applications [D.E. 1]. On August 2, 2022, the United States filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) [D.E. 16], and filed a memorandum in support which alleged that □ neither the United States Attorney nor the United States Attorney General were properly served under Rule 4 [D.E. 12]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), 4@)(2). Counsel for plaintiff has filed a response in opposition, demonstrating that she remedied the defects in service before August 21, 2022. See [D.E. 17, 20 and attachments]. The United States has not filed any reply, and the time within which to do so has expired. The court has considered the motion to dismiss under the governing standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(5), 4(i), (m); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). The court DENIES the motion

[D.E. 11] as moot. The court declines to grant plaintiff's request for attorney’s fees incurred in responding to the motion. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc., 48 F.4th 257, 2022 WL 4006939, at *12—16 (4th Cir. 2022); Hyatt v. Shalala, 6 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 1993). . SO ORDERED. This 29 day of September, 2022.

. C, DEVER II United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ‘FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:22-CV-81-D

FIVEPOINTSHEALTHCARE —_ié*d?ys OF NC, LLC d/b/a NATIVE ANGELS ) HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the ) Department of Health and Human Services, ) and CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE, ) Administrator for the Centers for Medicare ) and Medicaid Services, ) ) Defendants. On May 23, 2022, Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC d/b/a Native Angels Home Health Agency, Inc. (“Native Angels” or plaintiff) filed a complaint challenging two decisions by the Medicare Appeal Council concerning Medicare reimbursement applications [D.E. 1]. On August 2, 2022, the United States filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) [D.E. 16], and filed a memorandum in support which alleged that □ neither the United States Attorney nor the United States Attorney General were properly served under Rule 4 [D.E. 12]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), 4@)(2). Counsel for plaintiff has filed a response in opposition, demonstrating that she remedied the defects in service before August 21, 2022. See [D.E. 17, 20 and attachments]. The United States has not filed any reply, and the time within which to do so has expired. The court has considered the motion to dismiss under the governing standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(5), 4(i), (m); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). The court DENIES the motion

[D.E. 11] as moot. The court declines to grant plaintiff's request for attorney’s fees incurred in responding to the motion. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc., 48 F.4th 257, 2022 WL 4006939, at *12—16 (4th Cir. 2022); Hyatt v. Shalala, 6 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 1993). . SO ORDERED. This 29 day of September, 2022.

. C, DEVER II United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Five Points Healthcare of NC, LLC v. Becerra, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/five-points-healthcare-of-nc-llc-v-becerra-nced-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack