1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 INLAND NORTHWEST RENAL CARE ) GROUP, LLC d/b/a NORTHPOINTE ) 10 DIALYSIS, ) No. C19-1758-JCC-SKV ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 12 v. ) ORDER STAYING CASE AND ) (PROPOSED ORDER) 13 WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC ) and FIRST CHOICE HEALTH NETWORK, ) NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR: 14 INC. ) FEBRUARY 2, 2022 ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 The Parties to the above-captioned action, Plaintiff Inland Northwest Renal Care Group, 18 LLC d/b/a Northpointe Dialysis (“Northwest”), Defendant WebTPA Employer Services, LLC 19 (“WebTPA”), and Defendant First Choice Health Network, Inc. (“First Choice”) (collectively, 20 the “Parties”), hereby jointly move for entry of an order staying the case and all associated 21 deadlines for a period of 90 days, to permit the Parties to focus on a series of scheduled 22 mediations with the Parties to this case and multiple other entities who may bear ultimately 23 responsibility for any damages award. The Parties believe that this stay will facilitate their joint 24 efforts to resolve this dispute without the need for further litigation or use of judicial resources. 25 In support of this Joint Motion, the Parties state as follows: 26 1. This lawsuit arises from a dispute between the Parties with regard to the rates 27 that Defendant WebTPA paid for the dialysis and related services that Plaintiff Northwest 1 provided to a specific patient under the PPO network operated by Defendant First Choice. This 2 case is currently in the discovery stage with a trial date set for August 22, 2022. 3 2. This lawsuit has spawned two other legal proceedings: (1) an arbitration between 4 Defendant WebTPA and the Spokane Tribe (the “Arbitration”), and (2) a lawsuit in this Court 5 between Defendant WebTPA and its insurance carrier (entitled Associated Industries Ins. Co. 6 v. Communitas, Inc. et al. and currently pending as Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00708-LK). 7 3. Over the preceding year, the Parties to this action have been engaged in 8 settlement discussions to attempt to resolve this dispute outside of court. On May 26, 2021, the 9 Parties attended a mediation and have continued settlement discussions thereafter. At the time 10 of that first mediation, other stakeholders in this matter (including the Spokane Tribe and its 11 principle stop-loss insurer) were unwilling to participate in the settlement discussions. 12 4. Recently the Spokane Tribe and other parties to the Arbitration have agreed to 13 participate in a mediation process to hopefully come to a full and complete resolution to this 14 entire dispute. The Parties are hopeful that the participation of these additional entities will 15 facilitate a settlement. 16 5. To further this goal, the Parties have now agreed to schedule two further 17 mediations to occur in February 2022, which the Parties are hopeful will lead to the final 18 resolution of this entire dispute. The first of the mediations is currently scheduled for February 19 8, 2022, and is expected to include the Defendants and a number of other third parties that may 20 ultimately bear financial responsibility for Northwest’s contended damages. This first 21 mediation is intended to allow discussions that will facilitate the negotiations with the Plaintiff 22 to resolve the matter in the second mediation, which is scheduled for February 23, 2022. 23 6. The Parties and various stakeholders are committed to attempting to resolve the 24 case and believe that everyone’s interests are best served by allowing the Parties to avoid further 25 litigation expense and focus their efforts on resolution. Given the progress of settlement 26 discussions thus far, they are hopeful that they can ultimately settle this case in February or 27 shortly thereafter. 1 7. Pursuant to the current Case Scheduling Order, there are a number of deadlines 2 approaching that would otherwise require the Parties to focus their attentions on litigation and 3 expend considerable resources in the short term. The discovery motion deadline is set for 4 February 24, 2022, and the close of discovery is set for March 25, 2022. See Dkt. No. 61. 5 Should the deadlines not be stayed, the Parties will need to not only expend resources, but will 6 likely burden the Court with motions to compel that would not be necessary should this matter 7 settle. Further, suspending the need to do this work will place additional pressure on the Parties 8 to settle the case, as the Parties will be able to avoid additional fees and costs from this 9 additional work should the matter settle. The Parties jointly wish to attempt to resolve this 10 matter without the counterproductive need to conduct further discovery, and litigate a number 11 of discovery disputes. 12 8. “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 13 power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Ali v. Trump, 14 241 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1151 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental 15 to the power inherent in every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with 16 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). In considering whether 17 to grant a stay, the District Court should consider several factors, including “the possible 18 damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party 19 may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms 20 of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 21 expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Whether 22 to stay proceedings rests in the “sound discretion” of the District Court. Ali, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 23 1151. 24 9. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have stayed litigation where a settlement would 25 resolve the entire litigation and thereby preserve judicial resources. See Branca v. Iovate Health 26 Sciences, Inc., No. 12cv01686-LAB (WMC), 2013 WL 1344306, at *2 (S.D. Cal. April 2, 2013) 27 (staying litigation because settlement in separate litigation would resolve both actions); 1 Christensen v. CLP Resources, Inc., No. CV 14-8073-GW(PLAx), 2015 WL 13764185, at *1 2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015). 3 10. Here, the Court should exercise its discretion to stay this case for a period of 90 4 days to permit the Parties to engage in the scheduled mediations and focus their efforts on 5 resolving the matter without the need for further litigation. All of the relevant factors weigh in 6 favor of granting a stay. There is no hardship or damage posed by granting a stay – all Parties 7 are joining in this Motion, and no party will be prejudiced by the granting of a stay. Granting 8 a stay will hopefully allow the Parties to resolve this case entirely, as well as two other 9 associated litigations, thereby saving judicial resources, as well as the resources of the parties 10 to this action and the other proceedings. 11 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order staying the 12 case and all associated deadlines for a period of 90 days. 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 //
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Respectfully submitted by the Parties on this 2nd day of February, 2022:
2 /s/ Carin Marney . 3 Carin Marney, WSBA No. 25132 LANE POWELL PC 4 1420 Fifth Ave., Ste. 4200 P.O. Box 91302 5 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Tel.: 206-223-7000 6 marneyc@lanepowell.com Attorney for Plaintiff Northwest 7
8 /s/ Robert Zaffrann .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 INLAND NORTHWEST RENAL CARE ) GROUP, LLC d/b/a NORTHPOINTE ) 10 DIALYSIS, ) No. C19-1758-JCC-SKV ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 12 v. ) ORDER STAYING CASE AND ) (PROPOSED ORDER) 13 WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC ) and FIRST CHOICE HEALTH NETWORK, ) NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR: 14 INC. ) FEBRUARY 2, 2022 ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 The Parties to the above-captioned action, Plaintiff Inland Northwest Renal Care Group, 18 LLC d/b/a Northpointe Dialysis (“Northwest”), Defendant WebTPA Employer Services, LLC 19 (“WebTPA”), and Defendant First Choice Health Network, Inc. (“First Choice”) (collectively, 20 the “Parties”), hereby jointly move for entry of an order staying the case and all associated 21 deadlines for a period of 90 days, to permit the Parties to focus on a series of scheduled 22 mediations with the Parties to this case and multiple other entities who may bear ultimately 23 responsibility for any damages award. The Parties believe that this stay will facilitate their joint 24 efforts to resolve this dispute without the need for further litigation or use of judicial resources. 25 In support of this Joint Motion, the Parties state as follows: 26 1. This lawsuit arises from a dispute between the Parties with regard to the rates 27 that Defendant WebTPA paid for the dialysis and related services that Plaintiff Northwest 1 provided to a specific patient under the PPO network operated by Defendant First Choice. This 2 case is currently in the discovery stage with a trial date set for August 22, 2022. 3 2. This lawsuit has spawned two other legal proceedings: (1) an arbitration between 4 Defendant WebTPA and the Spokane Tribe (the “Arbitration”), and (2) a lawsuit in this Court 5 between Defendant WebTPA and its insurance carrier (entitled Associated Industries Ins. Co. 6 v. Communitas, Inc. et al. and currently pending as Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00708-LK). 7 3. Over the preceding year, the Parties to this action have been engaged in 8 settlement discussions to attempt to resolve this dispute outside of court. On May 26, 2021, the 9 Parties attended a mediation and have continued settlement discussions thereafter. At the time 10 of that first mediation, other stakeholders in this matter (including the Spokane Tribe and its 11 principle stop-loss insurer) were unwilling to participate in the settlement discussions. 12 4. Recently the Spokane Tribe and other parties to the Arbitration have agreed to 13 participate in a mediation process to hopefully come to a full and complete resolution to this 14 entire dispute. The Parties are hopeful that the participation of these additional entities will 15 facilitate a settlement. 16 5. To further this goal, the Parties have now agreed to schedule two further 17 mediations to occur in February 2022, which the Parties are hopeful will lead to the final 18 resolution of this entire dispute. The first of the mediations is currently scheduled for February 19 8, 2022, and is expected to include the Defendants and a number of other third parties that may 20 ultimately bear financial responsibility for Northwest’s contended damages. This first 21 mediation is intended to allow discussions that will facilitate the negotiations with the Plaintiff 22 to resolve the matter in the second mediation, which is scheduled for February 23, 2022. 23 6. The Parties and various stakeholders are committed to attempting to resolve the 24 case and believe that everyone’s interests are best served by allowing the Parties to avoid further 25 litigation expense and focus their efforts on resolution. Given the progress of settlement 26 discussions thus far, they are hopeful that they can ultimately settle this case in February or 27 shortly thereafter. 1 7. Pursuant to the current Case Scheduling Order, there are a number of deadlines 2 approaching that would otherwise require the Parties to focus their attentions on litigation and 3 expend considerable resources in the short term. The discovery motion deadline is set for 4 February 24, 2022, and the close of discovery is set for March 25, 2022. See Dkt. No. 61. 5 Should the deadlines not be stayed, the Parties will need to not only expend resources, but will 6 likely burden the Court with motions to compel that would not be necessary should this matter 7 settle. Further, suspending the need to do this work will place additional pressure on the Parties 8 to settle the case, as the Parties will be able to avoid additional fees and costs from this 9 additional work should the matter settle. The Parties jointly wish to attempt to resolve this 10 matter without the counterproductive need to conduct further discovery, and litigate a number 11 of discovery disputes. 12 8. “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 13 power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Ali v. Trump, 14 241 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1151 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental 15 to the power inherent in every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with 16 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). In considering whether 17 to grant a stay, the District Court should consider several factors, including “the possible 18 damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party 19 may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms 20 of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 21 expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Whether 22 to stay proceedings rests in the “sound discretion” of the District Court. Ali, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 23 1151. 24 9. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have stayed litigation where a settlement would 25 resolve the entire litigation and thereby preserve judicial resources. See Branca v. Iovate Health 26 Sciences, Inc., No. 12cv01686-LAB (WMC), 2013 WL 1344306, at *2 (S.D. Cal. April 2, 2013) 27 (staying litigation because settlement in separate litigation would resolve both actions); 1 Christensen v. CLP Resources, Inc., No. CV 14-8073-GW(PLAx), 2015 WL 13764185, at *1 2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015). 3 10. Here, the Court should exercise its discretion to stay this case for a period of 90 4 days to permit the Parties to engage in the scheduled mediations and focus their efforts on 5 resolving the matter without the need for further litigation. All of the relevant factors weigh in 6 favor of granting a stay. There is no hardship or damage posed by granting a stay – all Parties 7 are joining in this Motion, and no party will be prejudiced by the granting of a stay. Granting 8 a stay will hopefully allow the Parties to resolve this case entirely, as well as two other 9 associated litigations, thereby saving judicial resources, as well as the resources of the parties 10 to this action and the other proceedings. 11 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order staying the 12 case and all associated deadlines for a period of 90 days. 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 //
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Respectfully submitted by the Parties on this 2nd day of February, 2022:
2 /s/ Carin Marney . 3 Carin Marney, WSBA No. 25132 LANE POWELL PC 4 1420 Fifth Ave., Ste. 4200 P.O. Box 91302 5 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Tel.: 206-223-7000 6 marneyc@lanepowell.com Attorney for Plaintiff Northwest 7
8 /s/ Robert Zaffrann . Robert Zaffrann, Pro Hac Vice 9 Adam Santeusanio, Pro Hac Vice DUANE MORRIS LLP 10 100 High Street, Suite 2400 Boston, MA 02110 11 Tel.: 857-488-4200 rzaffrann@duanemorris.com 12 amsanteusanio@duanemorris.com Attorney for Plaintiff Northwest 13
14 /s/ Wendy Lyon . Wendy Lyon, WSBA No. 34461 15 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 4500 16 Seatle, WA 98154-1065 Tel.: 206-389-1667 17 wlyon@foxrothschild.com Attorney for Defendant First Choice 18
19 /s/ Andrew Holly . Benjamin Greenberg, WSBA No. 44120 20 Andrew Holly, Pro Hac Vice DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 21 701 Fifth Ave., Suite 6100 Seattle, WA 98104-7043 22 Tel.: 206-903-5442 greenberg.ben@dorsey.com 23 holly.andrew@dorsey.com Attorney for Defendant WebTPA 24
25 26 27 1 [Proposed] Order 2 The Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order Staying Case is hereby GRANTED and 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The above-captioned action and all deadlines related thereto shall be stayed for 5 a period of 90 days; 6 2. The Parties shall file a joint status report 90 days after the date of this Order 7 regarding the status of settlement negotiations and advising whether the Parties wish to extend 8 the stay. 9 10 SO ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2022.
11 12 A 13 S. KATE VAUGHAN 14 United States Magistrate Judge
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27