Funding Advisors Claims Recovery, LLC v. Advanced Care Hospitalist, PL

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

FUNDING ADVISORS CLAIMS RECOVERY, LLC, et al., : Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:21-cv-1501

Judge Sarah D. Morrison v. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A.

Jolson

ADVANCED CARE : HOSPITALISTS, PL.,

Defendant.

ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Advanced Care Hospitalists, PL.’s (“ACH”) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiffs have opposed the Motion (ECF No. 23, 25) and seek leave to amend their Complaint if the Court grants ACH’s motion. ACH replied (ECF No. 24) and opposed the leave request. This matter is now ripe for consideration. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is analyzed in the same manner as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008). To overcome such a motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). The complaint need not contain detailed

factual allegations, but it must include more than labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted when there is no material issue of fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tucker, 539 F.3d at 549.

All well-pled factual allegations in the Amended Complaint are accepted as true for purposes of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. See id. II. CONCLUSION Following review of the pleadings and the briefing in this case, it is clear that there are disputed factual allegations precluding judgment on the pleadings. ACH’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 20) is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 23) is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE